text:
I guess you can say that we are no strangers to Mexican food but then again we ain't experts either. We ventured as far as fajitas and tacos only. So making enchiladas would be new territories but then again that's the main reason I joined Daring Kitchen. This group is amazing and even had a mention in The Independent . Every month, a new host will challenge all of us with a completely different recipe and most times, from different countries. We were allowed to make variations of enchiladas but the main criteria was to make the sauce from scratch. I decided to keep the recipe simple and decided on using chicken meat. My hubby is not keen on red meat at all. But he was keen on trying out the enchiladas especially after being told it would be smothered with melting cheese. I had also wanted to try my hand at making some corn tortilla wraps from sractch but I could not find masa harina flour at all. So that idea got tossed out the window and I ended up taking the easy way out .... store bought flour tortillas. Anyway the enchiladas were delicious and I will certainly be making this again. Many thanks Barbara and Bunnee for another great challenge!
Chicken Enchiladas
(makes enough for 8 - 10 wraps)
3 cloves of garlic, minced
1 medium sized onion, diced
1 Tbsp canola oil
1 can chopped stewed tomatoes (or equivalent in fresh cherry tomatoes)
1/4 cup can tomato sauce (or substitute with 1 Tbsp of tomato paste)
1 tsp cumin
400g minced chicken (you can substitute with turkey, beef or lamb)
2 minced chipotle peppers (I used a small can of chipotle peppers in adobo sauce)
1/4 cup loosely packed cilantro, roughly chopped
Salt and crushed black pepper to taste
8 pieces flour tortillas
Cheddar cheese (yellow and white) grated
Salsa, sour cream and guacamole as condiments
Method for the Filing:
1) Heat oil in pan. Saute onion and garlic on medium heat until they begin to turn translucent.
2) Add chicken, brown for a few minutes and add seasonings.
3) Add tomatoes (crushing as you go if you used whole cherry tomatoes) and tomato sauce. Let sauce simmer and reduce until barely any liquid remains. The sauce should resemble consistency of a thick chilli. Set aside and cool.
Enchilada Sauce
1 tbsp oil
3 cloves garlic, minced
1 medium onion, diced
1 small chipotle pepper in adobo sauce, minced
1 tsp oregano
1 tsp cumin
1 can tomato sauce
Salt and crushed black pepper to taste
Method for the Sauce:
1) Heat oil in small sauce pan on medium heat, add onion and garlic. Stir until onions are translucent.
2) Add in chipotle chile and other seasonings, stir to combine.
3) Add in tomato sauce, stir and bring to a boil. Lower to simmer and simmer for 5-10 minutes.
To Assemble the Enchiladas:
1) Heat the oven to 200C.
2) Warm the tortillas in the microwave for about 30 seconds. Remove and lay one piece on a flat surface. Spoon about 2 Tbsp of the chicken filing across the center of the wrap.
3) Sprinkle some cheese over the filing.
4) Roll one side towards the other and place into a glass baking dish. Continue to do this for the next enchiladas, until you fill up the baking dish.
5) Pop the dish into the oven for about 5 mins. Remove from oven and pour the enchilada sauce over the wraps.
6) Top with a liberal sprinkling of cheese and place it back into the oven for another 10 - 15 minutes, or until the cheese just starts to bubble.
7) Remove and serve with salsa, guacomole and sour cream.


text:
The final round (round 3) of cupping has now been completed.
We have the results - and we have some conclusions.
First the results from Round Three...
To start with - this table was very, very good. Most of the roasters really stepped up their games. The differences were noticeable.
For this third round, coffee selection was Roasters' Choice.
Each roaster was asked to suggest two coffees for the table - and each was informed about what was going on (State of SF Coffee, blog posts, cupping blind, yadda yadda).
The coffees provided were as follows:
Ritual Coffee Roasters:
Kenya Kanyoni (also cupped in Round Two, but according to Ritual now with a different roast profile)
Honduras La Pinona (the controversial "sour" coffee from Round One)
Four Barrel Coffee:
El Salvador Finca Los Alpes (part of the Ground for Health program)
Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Moplaco
Blue Bottle Coffee:
Ethiopia Yirgacheffe YCFCU Co-op
Nicaragua Pueblo Nuevo Co-op
Ecco Caffe:
Yirgacheffe Dama Co-op (the top ranked coffee from Rounds One and Two)
Colombia Loma Rodonda Auction Lot
Equator Coffee and Tea:
Ethiopia Sidamo Amaro Gayo
Kenya Riuki AA
Given the number of coffees from East Africa, I have to assume that some notice had been paid to the performance of the Dama Co-op Yirgacheffe in the first two rounds.
In addition to the coffees from these same five Bay Area roasters - this time there were two "ringer" coffees. In order to enable us to evaluate the State of SF Coffee as compared to coffee elsewhere - two coffees from Intelligentsia were sourced. Intelligentsia is one of the top coffee companies in the US - but more than that they are a very good "control" for this cupping. Pretty much everyone knows Intelligentsia and knows how good their coffees are. By comparing to these other coffees - we can derive an understanding of how SF Coffee in general compares.
The coffees sourced from Intelligentsia were:
Kenya Gichathaini
Colombia Finca Santuario Heliconias Bourbon
As always, the coffees were cupped blind - with no whole beans displayed and the coffees coded based upon playing cards to make sure there were no clues given. Coffees were roughly sequenced from light to dark roast - but with no other form of sequencing or sorting.
As noted at the start - the roasters stepped up their games for this one. There was not a single "failed" coffee on the table. Even the lowest ranked coffee would have been ranked out of the bottom 3 in either other round of cupping. In addition, there really were only a couple coffees that showed "issues" in their roasting - a big change from past rounds.
In the end we had an absolutely clear top coffee, a very tight group of coffees in the 2-7 places, a tight group in the 8-10 places and two nearly tied coffees as 11 and 12. In addition, as in Round One, we had one seriously "controversial" coffee - and this time the controversy did not divide the "coffee people" from the "non coffee people."
In this round, the top coffee was the Ritual Kenya Kanyoni. As noted above, the folks at Ritual said that they had changed the roast on this coffee - and that was very clear in the cup. The coffee was incredibly layered and deep - opening up beautifully as it cooled. It had tons of molasses and spice that revealed wonderful bright lemon rind and candied grapefruit over time. Lovely notes of dried berry throughout. A really wonderful coffee.
The 2nd through 7th coffees were as follows:
Ecco Yirgacheffe Dama Co-op (a clearly different roast of this coffee yielded pomegranate and kiwi acidity with tons of lavender and a nice lemon-verbena oil flavour)
Intelligentsia Kenya Gichathaini (a very unusual coffee. sweet roasted beets, leather, tons of dried stone-fruit, simple citrus acidity, complete but crazy. hints of horse-blanket funk as it cools.)
Four Barrel El Salvador Finca Los Alpes (the "controversial" coffee of the day. tons of berry and ferment that by some was considered to be "too much" and others to be "in control". incredibly sweet with lovely fruit and hard candy high notes like jolly ranchers)
Intelligentsia Colombia Finca Santuario (lots of of dried fruit and tropical spice on a very sweet dark molasses backbone. cherry candy and a little bit of "twig tea" flavour)
Four Barrel Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Moplaco (elegant with interesting Nori-like flavours. lovely lemon acidity and assam tea. hints of celery and scallion as it cools.)
Ecco Colombia Loma Redonda Auction Lot (lovely clean acidity with tons of lime and lemon and some sweet tangerine. a bit thin and some hints of ash.)
In the 8th-10th places we had:
Equator Kenya Riuki AA (very savory, a dense and almost huge coffee that opens up with dried stone fruit and a bit of a roasty toasty finish. kind of flat and gets a bit flabby as it cools.)
Ritual Honduras La Pinona (tons of citrus acidity ranging from grapefruit pith to lemon zest to lime juice. sweet honey in the body. unusual flavours of mirin and bologna as it cools. lost some structure over time)
Blue Bottle Nicaragua Pueblo Nuevo (lots and lots of dried cherry and dried plum. a little roasty tasting and a bit flat and bland as it cooled)
And the 11th and 12th place coffees were:
Blue Bottle Yirgacheffe (initially round and dense and big and bold, as it cooled it became initially flat and then notes of smoke appeared and it became somewhat harsh and unbalanced)
Equator Ethiopia Sidamo Amaro Gayo (tons of blueberry but what were initially hints of inner tube became more and more phenolic over time. a great roast of a poor coffee)
A couple things to note from these results - some "take-aways" so to speak...
Blue Bottle and Ritual stepped up their games. While the Nicaragua from Blue Bottle was not to everyone's taste, it was still a good professional coffee. As compared to the two previous rounds of cupping, this was a big step up. And the difference in the Kenya Kanyoni from Ritual between the previous cupping and this was truly dramatic.
There are a lot of really good coffees available in SF right now. Of the 10 SF sourced coffees on the table, 8 of them are good to excellent. In addition, every one of the 5 roasters produced at least one coffee that was good or better.
In terms of conclusions.... there are again a couple of high level points to be made.
Coffee in SF can be quite good.
The top three roasters are producing coffee that is competitive with coffee from Intelligentsia - a clear measuring stick nationally. This is huge for SF. In many ways at this point, you can argue that coffee lovers are as well off in SF as anywhere in the US (other than perhaps Portland OR).
The top 3 coffee roasters in the SF area are pretty obvious.
In looking at the scores and the rankings across the three rounds - it is quite clear that the top three roasters in SF are Ecco, Four Barrel and Ritual. By both score and rank, Ecco would be #1 with Four Barrel and Ritual #2 and #3 but separated by a difference of less than 5% in total score. Ecco really rode the success of the Dama Co-op Yirgacheffe while Four Barrel showed impressive consistency across rounds and coffees and Ritual just knocked it out of the park with two coffees and had two that didn't show as well.
SF roasters for the most part are roasting to distinct personal styles.
Four of these roasters are roasting in their own style - and are incredibly consistent about doing so. This is a very good thing as it gives consumers a clear choice - allowing them to choose a style of coffee that pleases them and giving them choice within that style. Ecco is consistently round and elegant and balanced. Four Barrel is consistently developed and big and deep and balanced. Ritual is consistently bright and focused and layered. And Blue Bottle is consistently deep and rich and bottom-heavy with little acidity.
I think these results are at this point quite clear.
So rather than beating a dead horse, I'd like to thank some folks for making this happen.
Thanks to Tal, Johnny and Jeremy from Four Barrel for the feedback and the coffees.
Thanks to Ryan and Ben from Ritual for the thoughts, input and coffees.
Thanks to James from Blue Bottle for the feedback and concerns and for making sure I got the coffee I needed.
Thanks to Maria from Equator for the clarifications and help with sourcing the coffee.
Thanks to Andrew, Drew and Gabe from Ecco for the thoughts, feedback and helping me source the coffee.
Special thanks to my fellow cuppers for the time - the focus - the dedication - and the sense of humor. This was really fun.
Thanks to everyone who commented on the blog or who emailed or called me with feedback, support and input.
Most of all thanks to Valerie for keeping me sane.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Monica Gray
Thank you for visiting the memorial I created in memory of my loved one.
This Memorial was created to commemorate a loved one's life and to let other families know they can turn to the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids for help when struggling with their son or daughter's substance use. Please consider sharing this page to increase awareness of substance use disorders and to provide hope and healing for others.


text:
Donna Fick, associate professor in Penn State's School of Nursing, was inducted into the American Academy of Nursing (AAN) as one of its 2009 Fellows. She was nominated for this honor by two current AAN fellows and was selected by the AAN's 15-member Fellow Selection Committee for her outstanding achievements in the nursing profession. Fick was inducted along with 97 other nurse leaders at AAN's annual awards ceremony and induction banquet in Atlanta, Georgia, on Nov. 7.
Fick's research focuses on two major geriatric issues: potentially inappropriate medications in older adults and delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD). She is the lead researcher of an interdisciplinary panel to update the Beers Criteria for inappropriate medication use in older adults -- a project that has been cited over 300 times since 2004. Her other research efforts focus on lack of knowledge of DSD, the outcomes, costs and health care utilization associated with DSD, and examination of nonpharmacological strategies to manage delirium. She has been supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and other major organizations.
Fick's work has far-reaching policy and practice implications. The Beers Criteria have been adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and are part of the 2006 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measure. They also are used by medical centers and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in their electronic medical records.
Fick is a leader in the gerontology community and co-director of the Penn State Hartford Center for Geriatric Nursing Excellence. She widely disseminates her work through over 50 publications, through national media coverage (including CNN, the Washington Post, and the San Francisco Chronicle) and through the John A. Hartford Foundation. Publications and videos are widely used by nurse educators in clinical settings and schools of nursing.
Fick received her bachelor of science in nursing from Berea College in Berea, Ky., her master of science in nursing from the University of Cincinnati, and her doctorate from the University of California, San Francisco. She is board-certified as a gerontological clinical nurse specialist.
The American Academy of Nursing is constituted to anticipate national and international trends in health care and address resulting issues of health care knowledge and policy. The invitation to fellowship is not only recognition of one's accomplishments within the nursing profession, but it also affords an opportunity to work with other leaders in health care in addressing the issues of the day. AAN's mission is to serve the public and nursing profession by advancing health policy and practice through the generation, synthesis and dissemination of nursing knowledge.


text:
Government's legislation on toxics bad for people's health
TORONTO, June 3, 2009 – A law aimed at protecting the health of people in Ontario by reducing harmful toxic substances doesn't go far enough, says a top nursing group.
Bill 167, the Toxics Reduction Act, passed today without the crucial amendments the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) and other organizations say are needed to guarantee families and individuals safe working and living environments.
When the government announced its legislation back in April, RNAO welcomed the bill, but warned that changes would be required to ensure the bill's effectiveness in coaxing businesses to reduce their reliance on harmful and toxic substances. Since that announcement, an all-party committee reviewing the legislation has heard from many groups, including RNAO, making calls to strengthen the legislation.
"We recommended the government set aggressive targets to reduce toxic chemicals, mandatory substitution where safer alternatives exist, and the creation of an institute to support business and community to reach their reduction goals," says RNAO President Wendy Fucile. "Since the bill is modeled on the successful Massachusetts toxics program, the government's own expert panel advised including key features of that program, such as targets and an institute. We don't understand why this advice was ignored."
We were expecting far more up-front to deal seriously with the huge quantities of toxic substances companies use, create and release in their manufacturing processes. At this point, the bill remains all promise when what's needed is urgent action," adds Fucile.
RNAO's Executive Director Doris Grinspun says nurses are extremely disappointed because Ontario is one of the worst offenders when it comes to toxic pollution, and these releases are linked in the scientific literature to cancer, birth defects, and medical conditions such as Parkinson's. "People's health is at stake and they're demanding action from our government. We can't afford to waste any more time on this critical health issue, we need immediate government action."
Even though the legislation is expected to be proclaimed into law this week, Grinspun says RNAO will be demanding a transparent process with public input to deliver strong regulations to fill the gaps. "Though we are disappointed with the legislation, we will work very hard with government on the regulations to roll back this toxic tide and protect the public."
The Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) is the professional association representing registered nurses wherever they practise in Ontario. Since 1925, RNAO has lobbied for healthy public policy, promoted excellence in nursing practice, increased nurses' contribution to shaping the health-care system, and influenced decisions that affect nurses and the public they serve.-30-
Marion Zych, Director of Communications, RNAO
Cell: 647-406-5605 / Office: 416-408-5605
Toll free: 1-800-268-7199 ext. 209


text:
A Sandwich a Day: Bistec Torta at Taqueria Lower East Side
A new sandwich every day.
In this great city of ours, one could eat a different sandwich every day of the year—so that's what we'll do. Here's A Sandwich a Day, our daily look at sandwiches around New York. Got a sandwich we should check out? Let us know. —The Mgmt.
The time-tested, tried and true torta ingredients triumph yet again at Taqueria Lower East Side on their Bistec Torta ($6.25). Fatty avocado adds richness that's balanced by spicy jalapeno and crisp slices of iceberg. Like the carnitas torta, a light Portuguese roll absorbs any juice from the ingredients within and gets better with every bite.
Well-seasoned hanger steak is roasted and chopped into bite size pieces for the bistec. They're kept in place by a smear of beans, whose starch acts like glue and helps keep the tender chunks of steak from falling out every time you lift it to take a bite. For now, we could do without the tomato, but we can't do without another torta from Taqueria for very long.
Taqueria Lower East Side
198 Orchard Street, New York, NY 10002 (map) 212-677-3910
All products linked here have been independently selected by our editors. We may earn a commission on purchases, as described in our affiliate policy.


text:
WOODWARD v. DE GRAFFENRIED(1915)
[238 U.S. 284, 285] Messrs. William R. Lawrence, F. W. Clements, and George S. Ramsey for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Thomas H. Owen, Joseph C. Stone, and Charles A. Cook for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:
This was an ejectment suit, brought by defendant in error in the district court of Muskogee county, Oklahoma, to recover an undivided half interest in a tract of 160 acres of land situate in that county, formerly part of the domain of the Creek Nation in the Indian Territory. The tract was allotted to Agnes Hawes, a Creek freedwoman, [238 U.S. 284, 286] who, after receiving the allotment, died without issue, leaving surviving her husband, Ratus Hawes (under whom defendant in error claims), her mother, Peggie Woodward, one of the plaintiffs in error, and her father, Louis Woodward, since deceased, to whose rights the remaining plaintiffs in error have succeeded. From an agreed statement of facts it appears that Agnes Hawes was a recognized citizen of the Creek Nation, she being a negress of full blood and enrolled on the Freedmen Roll of that Nation; that she died June 29, 1900, having previously made selection of the tract in question as her allotment of land in that Nation before the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, and received from the Commission a certificate of allotment therefor; that after her death, and after the adoption of the Original Creek Agreement (act of March 1, 1901, 31 Stat. at L. 861, chap. 676; effective June 25, 1901, 32 Stat. at L. 1971), the Commission awarded the same land to her heirs, and thereafter, on April 1, 1904, a patent for it was duly issued to the 'Heirs of Agnes Hawes,' without naming them, which patent was in due form and approved by the Secretary of the Interior; that the patent, having been properly recorded, was accepted by her heirs; that at her death Agnes was the legal and acknowledged wife of Ratus Hawes, a noncitizen; that she left no children or grandchildren surviving her, had no children by her said husband, and was survived by him and by her parents already mentioned; and that on June 22, 1904, Ratus Hawes conveyed to plaintiff (defendant in error) an undivided half interest in the lands in question, by deed duly acknowledged and recorded in the records at Muskogee.
There was a judgment for the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the supreme court of Oklahoma (36 Okla. 81, 131 Pac. 162), and the present writ of error was allowed.
A brief additional recital should preface a statement of the questions in controversy. The date of the selection [238 U.S. 284, 287] by Agnes Hawes and of the allotment to her of the tract in question is not mentioned in the record; but it must have been on or after April 1, 1899, that being the date on which the allotment office for the Creek Nation was opened at Muskogee by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, as appears from their Sixth Annual Report, p. 18, referred to in the marginal note, infra. Therefore, both the allotment and the death of the allottee occurred within the period during which 11 of the Curtis act (act of June 28, 1898, chap. 517, 30 Stat. at L. 495, 497) was in force in the Creek Nation, by the terms of which the Commission was directed, upon the completion of the citizenship roll and the survey of the lands of the tribe, to 'proceed to allot the exclusive use and occupancy of the surface of all the lands of said nation or tribe susceptible of allotment among the citizens thereof, as shown by said roll, giving to each, so far as possible, his fair and equal share thereof, considering the nature and fertility of the soil, location, and value of same,' with reservations that need not at the moment be specified.
From the facts stated it is also evident that the allotment to Agnes Hawes was made under and by virtue of this section, and therefore comes within the category of allotments confirmed by the Original Creek Agreement (act of March 1, 1901, chap. 676, 6, 31 Stat. at L. 861, 863).
For we lay on one side, as quite untenable, the contention of defendant in error that the allotment was made not under the Curtis act, but under the Creek Agreement of February 1, 1899, which failed to become law. The principal ground of the contention is that conditions precedent to allotment, prescribed in terms or necessarily implied from 11 of the Curtis act, had not been performed in the Creek Nation: the rolls of citizenship not having been completed, no appraisement or classification of the lands having been made for determining what lands were susceptible of allotment and for equalizing the value of allotments, [238 U.S. 284, 288] no selections having been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, etc. Not to mention other answers that might be made to this, it is sufficient for the present to say that the only lawful authority to allot Creek lands possessed by the Commission prior to the adoption of the Original Creek Agreement was derived from the Curtis act, and that all allotments made during the intervening period were made under instructions issued by the Secretary of the Interior with express reference to the latter act. This will be more particularly shown when we come to discuss, as we must, the proper construction of the two acts referred to, and their effect upon the title to the allotted tract. The fact that conditions precedent imposed by the Curtis act had not been performed when the Commission proceeded to make Creek allotments after its passage and prior to the Original Creek Agreement may have furnished one of the reasons for the express ratification of such allotments contained in 6 of the Agreement; but this, of course, is far from saying that the allotments were not made under the Curtis act.
The case presented, therefore, is that of a Creek allotment selected by the citizen and made by the Dawes Commission under 11 of that act, followed first by the death of the allottee after receiving the allotment and prior to the Original Creek Agreement, and then by action of the Commission, after ratification of that Agreement, awarding the lands to the 'heirs' of the deceased allottee, and the ultimate issue of a patent to them.
The principal question is: By what law are the beneficiaries of the allotment and patent to be determined? Plaintiffs in error contend that, by the terms of 11 of the Curtis act, Agnes Hawes took an estate of inheritance, subject to the reservation of the minerals; that at her death this interest descended to her heirs, according to the Arkansas laws of descent, under which the husband was not an heir, and acquired no interest in the land by the [238 U.S. 284, 289] curtesy, there being no child born of the marriage; and that 6 of the Original Creek Agreement in ratifying the allotment vested an absolute title in her heirs, which related back to the date of the allotment or else to the date of her death, and carried the minerals with it. It is the contention of defendant in error, sustained by the Oklahoma courts, that the allotment to Agnes Hawes under the Curtis act did not vest in her the fee or any heritable interest; that the (equitable) fee was first vested in her 'heirs' by the provisions of the Original Creek Agreement, they taking by purchase, and not by descent; and that who should take as her 'heirs' must be determined according to the Creek laws of descent, under which the surviving husband took an undivided half interest, which passed by his deed to defendant in error.
It is not open to question that at the death of Agnes Hawes (June 29, 1900) the Arkansas law of descent was in force in the Creek Nation. This court, in a recent decision, pointed out the successive acts of legislation; culminating in 26 and 28 of the Curtis act itself, by which Congress had displaced the tribal laws of descent and distribution, and substituted the Arkansas law as expressed in chapter 49 of Mansfield's Digest. Washington v. Miller, 235 U.S. 422, 424 , 59 S. L. ed. --, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 119. But, as shown in that case (p. 425), the Original Creek Agreement contained provisions which reinstated the Creek laws of descent and distribution for certain purposes affecting the allotments in that Nation. Whether they apply to the present case is a subordinate question, to be discussed in its order.
In order to determine the questions thus presented it is necessary first to ascertain the true meaning of 11 of the Curtis act, and then to consider the pertinent provisions of the Original Creek Agreement.
In Barnett v. Way (1911) 29 Okla. 780, 119 Pac. 418, a case precisely in point with the present,-the allotment having been made under 11 of the Curtis act and the allottee [238 U.S. 284, 290] having died thereafter and before the ratification of the Original Creek Agreement,-the supreme court of Oklahoma held the rule of descent and distribution obtaining at the death of the allottee to be immaterial because she had no title in fee, legal or equitable, that could descend; and further held that by 6 of the Original Agreement her allotment was ratified, and by 28 was vested in her heirs, to be ascertained as to the date of her death, according to the rule of descent and distribution then in force in the Creek Nation governing the devolution of property owned by any of its deceased members at the time of the member's death. To the same effect is Divine v. Harmon, 30 Okla. 820, 121 Pac. 219. These decisions are invoked by defendant in error as establishing a rule of property. But, as the first of them was rendered only a little more than three years ago, after the present action was commenced, and less than a year before it was decided by the supreme court of Oklahoma, it seems proper that, while giving due weight to the state decisions, we should re-examine the questions upon their merits.
Upon a first attentive reading of the Curtis act (30 Stat. at L. 495, chap. 517) it is seen to be divisible into three principal parts: (a) the first 28 sections, which contain obligatory provisions applicable (with minor exceptions not important in this discussion generally throughout the Indian Territory, which at that time (act of May 2, 1890, chap. 182, 29, 26 Stat. at L. 81, 93) included the country of the Five Civilized Tribes, and little besides; (b) 29, which ratified an agreement made by the Dawes Commission with commissions representing the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes on April 23, 1897 (the 'Atoka Agreement'), as amended, the same to be of full force and effect if ratified before December 1, 1898, by a majority of the votes cast by the members of the tribes at an election held for that purpose; 'and if said agreement as amended be so ratified, the provisions of this act shall [238 U.S. 284, 291] then only apply to said tribes where the same do not conflict with the provisions of said agreement;' and (c) 30, ratifying and resubmitting, on similar terms and with like effect, an agreement made by the Dawes Commission with a commission representing the Creek tribe on September 27, 1897, as amended.
The first part of the Act required ( 11) the allotment, without the consent of the tribe, of 'the exclusive use and occupancy of the surface' of all tribal lands susceptible of allotment, reserving to the tribe all oil, coal, asphalt, and mineral deposits, and all town sites; the oil and other minerals to be leased ( 13) by the Secretary of the Interior; the town lots to be sold ( 15), with right of pre-emption to the owner of the substantial improvements, if any, and the purchase money to become the property of the tribe upon the execution and delivery to the purchaser, by some person authorized by the tribe, of a deed conveying to him the title to the lands. Each of the proposed agreements contains provisions for the allotment of lands to the members of the tribes, to be followed by the delivery of a patent conveying all the right, title, and interest of the tribe, excepting, in the case of the Atoka Agreement, the coal and asphalt under the land. With respect to allotments to be made under 11, no provision is made for extinguishing the tribal title. But there is a proviso (p. 498): 'That the lands allotted shall be nontransferable until after full title is acquired, and shall be liable for no obligations contracted prior thereto by the allottee, and shall be nontaxable while so held.' By 12, the allotments were to be reported to the Secretary of the Interior, 'and when he shall confirm such allotments the allottees shall remain in peaceable and undisturbed possession thereof, subject to the provisions of this act.'
Considering the language of 11, and the absence of provision for extinguishing the tribal title to allotted lands, in contrast with the provisions respecting title [238 U.S. 284, 292] contained in 15 as to town lots, and those contained in each of the proposed agreements as to both allotments and town lots, it seems sufficiently plain, upon the face of the act, that allottees under 11 were to take only 'the exclusive use and occupancy of the surface,' with the right to remain in peaceable and undisturbed possession, but without right to transfer the allotment until full title should be acquired. For the acquisition of such title, no provision was made by this act, except as either or both of the proposed Agreements might be ratified by the tribes concerned. There was, however, in 15 of an act of March 3, 1893, chap. 209 (27 Stat. at L. 612, 645), a grant of authority to each of the tribes to allot their lands in severalty, not exceeding 160 acres to any one person.
Having regard, therefore, merely to the language employed in 11 of the Curtis act and the context, there is no foundation for the contention that allottees thereunder took any assignable or inheritable interest in the land, or anything more than an exclusive right to possess and enjoy the surface of the land during the lifetime of the occupant.
It is, however, insisted by plaintiffs in error that when the conditions existing at the time of the passage of this act, and the objects Congress sought to attain by it, are fully understood and considered, 11 bears a different import, and by its true construction confers upon the allottee at least an equitable title of inheritance in the lands set apart to him, saving the minerals. It is said that to confer upon the allottee a mere right of occupancy for life, to revert to the tribe and become a part of the public domain upon his decease, would have given to the Creek Indians less than they already had under their own laws, which conferred the right to inclose and cultivate lands of the tribe and to pass the improvements to their heirs at their death. It is insisted that at least the Curtis act allottee took an inheritable right of occupancy [238 U.S. 284, 293] and that this, coupled with the confirmation arising from 6 of the Original Agreement, vested the fee in the heirs of the allottee as of the time of his or her decease, even though that event occurred before the ratification of the Agreement.
It is very true that this act, passed as it was during a period of transition in the history of the Indian Territory, must be interpreted in the light of the situation then existing, and that we should have especial regard to the 'old law' and the 'mischief' in order to correctly appreciate the 'remedy.' And, in view of the great importance of the question before us,-for it appears that much the greater part of the Creek lands were allotted during the period intervening between April 1, 1899, and May 25, 1901,-we have resorted to all authentic sources of information within reach in order to realize and appreciate the situation that presented itself to Congress when the Curtis act was passed. The result is that the view above expressed respecting the true intent and meaning of 11 is most fully confirmed.
The history of the removal of the Muskogee or Creek Nation from their original homes to lands purchased and set apart for them by the government of the United States in the territory west of the Mississippi river does not differ greatly from that of the others of the Five Civilized Tribes rehearsed in recent decisions of this court. Mullen v. United States, 224 U.S. 448 , 56 L. ed. 834, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 494; Goat v. United States, 224 U.S. 458, 461 , 56 S. L. ed. 841, 843, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541. Pursuant to treaty provisions (treaty of 1826, art. 6, 7 Stat. at L. 286; treaty of 1832, arts. 12 and 14, 7 Stat. at L. 366; treaty of 1833, art. 3, 7 Stat. at L. 417), the Creeks held their lands under letters patent issued by the President of the United States, dated August 11, 1852, vesting title in them as a tribe, to continue so long as they should exist as a nation and continue to occupy the country thereby assigned to them. McKellop's Comp. 1893, p. 9. These treaties and the [238 U.S. 284, 294] treaty of 1856, 11 Stat. at L. 699, articles 4 and 15, conferred in ample terms the right of self government so far as compatible with the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes. The other four tribes held similar patents.
In the course of time, changing conditions and the great influx of white people into the territory pointed to the necessity of abolishing, if possible, the tribal organizations, and allotting the land in severalty. But because of the special rights that had been conferred upon these tribes, and the fact that they held patents for their respective lands, it was considered proper, if not indispensable, to obtain the consent of the Indians to the overthrow of the communal system of land ownership. As early as the year 1866, shortly after the close of the Civil War, when new treaties were negotiated with the Five Civilized Tribes (14 Stat. at L. 755, 769, 785, 799), the treaty with the Choctaws and Chickasaws (pp. 774- 778) contained provisions for a survey, division, and allotment of their lands, so as to change the tenure from a holding in common to a holding in severalty, in tracts of a quarter section each; but this plan was made contingent upon the consent of the Choctaw and Chickasaw people through their respective legislative councils. The Chickasaw Council, by an act approved November 9, 1866 (re-enacted October 17, 1876), not only confirmed the treaty, but gave assent to the adoption of the proposed plan of allotment. The Choctaw Council, by an act approved December 21, 1866, referred the proposition 'to the people at large to be declared through their legal representatives in council at the October session, A. D. 1867;' but no affirmative action appears to have been taken upon it. And so the provisions of the treaty in this respect were not put into effect.
When Congress in the act of February 8, 1887, chap 119 [238 U.S. 284, 295] (24 Stat at L. 388, Comp. Stat. 1913, 4195), entered upon the general policy of allotting lands in severalty to the Indians upon the various reservations, the lands of the Creeks and other Indians in the Indian Territory were by 8 excluded from the operation of the act.
By 15 of the Indian appropriation act of March 3, 1893, chap. 209 ( 27 Stat. at L. 612, 645), Congress sought to encourage the Five Civilized Tribes to themselves enter upon the policy of allotting their lands in severalty, by giving the express consent of the United States to such allotments, not exceeding 160 acres to any one individual, declaring that the allottees should be deemed to be citizens of the United States, and that the reversionary interest of the United States in the allotted lands should cease, and appropriating money to pay for the survey of any lands so allotted. As a declaration of the policy of the United States this section has importance. But it seems to have had no direct effect in the way of establishing that policy; at least, we have found nothing to show that any of the tribes allotted any of their land pursuant to it.
By 16 of the same act provision was made for the appointment of a commission to enter into negotiations with the same tribes for the purpose of extinguishing the tribal titles, either by cession to the United States, or by allotment and division in severalty among the Indians, or by such other method as might be agreed upon between the several tribes and the United States, with a view to the ultimate creation of a state or states of the Union to embrace the lands within the territory. This was the origin of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, familiarly known as the Dawes Commission. Its reports, issued annually thereafter, and communicated by the Secretary of the Interior to Congress for its information and guidance, give a complete and interesting history of the efforts made to further the policy of Congress,-efforts [238 U.S. 284, 296] beginning in discouragement, but finally crowned with success. So far as these reports antedate the legislation that is under inquiry, they may of course be resorted to as aids to interpretation, for the Commission was in a very real sense 'the eyes and the ears' of Congress in matters pertaining to affairs in the Indian Territory, and legislation was framed with a special regard to its recommendations. (See Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 465 , 36 S. L. ed. 226, 230, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511; Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486, 495 , 48 S. L. ed. 1087, 1090, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 816.) We append in the margin a reference-list of these reports. 1
The 1st Report contains a general explanation of conditions in the Territory, indicating (p. lxviii.) the complete [238 U.S. 284, 297] failure of the tribal governments, and showing that the principle of the treaties, which was that the lands of the several nations should be held in common for the equal benefit of the citizens, was so far departed from in practice that a few energetic men had been enabled to appropriate to their exclusive use almost the entire property of the territory that could be rendered profitable and available. 'In one of these tribes, whose whole territory consists of but 3,040,000 acres of land, within the last few years laws have been enacted under the operation of which sixty-one citizens have appropriated to themselves and are now holding for pasturage and cultivation 1,237,000 acres. This comprises the arable and greater part of the valuable grazing lands belonging to that tribe. . . . In another of these tribes, under similar legislation, vast and rich deposits of coal of incalculable value have been appropriated by the few, to the exclusion of the rest of the tribe and to the great profit of those who operate them and appropriate their products to their individual use.' It was further pointed out that towns of considerable importance, with permanent improvements of great value, had been built upon lands which could not be granted in severalty to the inhabitants. In the 2d Report, pp. lxxxvii., xciii., the substance of the above statements was reiterated with emphasis. And in the 4th Report, dated October 11, 1897, and submitted to Congress shortly before the consideration of the Curtis bill, reference was made to the pending agreements with the Choctaws and Chickasaws, and with the Creeks (these were rejected by the Indians before the Curtis bill was passed), and attention was again called (p. cxxi.) to 'the condition to which these Five Tribes have been brought by their wide departure in the administration of the governments which the United States committed to their own hands, and in the uses to which they have put the vast tribal wealth with which they were intrusted for the common enjoyment of all theirpeople. [238 U.S. 284, 298] . . . Longer service among them and greater familiarity with their condition have left nothing to modify either of fact or conclusion in former reports, but, on the contrary, have strengthened convictions that there can be no cure of the evils engendered by the perversion of these great trusts but their resumption by the government which created them.' From these reports it also appears that while there was a strong sentiment among the Indian natives favorable to the subdivision of the tribal lands into individual holdings, the principal chiefs and most influential citizens were at first opposed to any concession threatening the permanence of the communal or tribal titles.
The first agreement negotiated with the Creeks was dates September 27, 1897, and in unamended form is found in the 4th Report, port, p. cxxix. It provided that every Creek citizen should have an allotment of 160 acres of the tribal lands, for which he should receive a patent conveying to him the tribal title; that land should be set apart for religious and educational institutions, for public buildings, and for cemetery purposes; that the town lots should be appraised-land and improvements separately- and that the owners of the improvements might buy the land; and that the balance of the tribal lands should be appraised and sold at auction, and the proceeds put into the Treasury of the United States and used for the purpose of equalizing the allotments with respect to value. The Commission say in their 5th Report, dated October 3, 1898 (p. 1052), that this agreement 'was rejected by the [Creek] council, the chief, Isparhecher, some of his friends and other persons interested in leases obtained from the Nation, opposing the changes contemplated in it.' This rejection was prior to the passage of the Curtis act.
Even before the first report of the Commission, the attention of the Senate of the United States was especially drawn to affairs in the Indian Territory, and a select committee was sent there to make an investigation. They [238 U.S. 284, 299] reported under date May 7, 1894, expressing views closely agreeing with those afterwards expressed by the Dawes Commission. And the House Committee report that accompanied the Curtis bill was to the same effect in substance.
We have set forth in the margin extracts from (a) the Senate Committee report just mentioned, (b) the House Committee report, and (c) the bill as enacted into law, the latter selected to show how its provisions were directed to the mischiefs pointed out in the reports. The italics are ours. 2 [238 U.S. 284, 300] The Curtis bill, as introduced in the House, did not contain the provisions of the present 29 and 30 (30 Stat. at L. 505, 514, chap. 517 ), ratifying, with amendments, and submitting
___ monopoly is so great that in the most wealthy any progressive tribe your Committee were told that 100 persons had appropriated fully onehalf of the best land. This class of citizens take the very best agricultural lands and leave the poorer land to the less enterprising citizens, who in many instances farm only a few acres in the districts farthest removed from the railroads and the civilized centers. As we have said, the title to these lands is held by the tribe in trust for the people. We have shown that this trust is not being properly executed, nor will it be if left to the Indians, and the question arises, What is the duty of the government of the United States with reference to this trust? While we have recognized these tribes as dependent nations, the government has likewise recognized its guardianship over the Indians and its obligations to protect them in their property and personal rights. . . . We do not care to at this time suggest what, in our judgment, will be the proper step for Congress to take on this matter, for the Commission created by an act of Congress, and commonly known as the Dawes Commission, is now in the Indian Territory with the purpose of submitting to the several tribes of that territory some proposition for the change in the present very unsatisfactory condition of that country. We prefer to wait and see whether this difficult and delicate subject may not be disposed of by an agreement with the several tribes of that territory. But if the Indians decline to treat with that Commission, and decline to consider any change in the present condition of their titles and government, the United States must, without their aid and without waiting for their approval, settle this question of the character and condition of their land tenures and establish a government over whites and Indians of that territory in accordance with the principles of our Constitution and laws.'
Extracts from House Committee Report, March 1, 1898, accompanying the Curtis bill (House Rep. No. 593, 55th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 3):
___ the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Senate to join them. The subject was considered by that joint committee for several days and then by the full Committee on Indian Affairs in the House, and after the most careful investigation, your committee recommended the passage of the bill.
... * *
___ more than their share of the profit, so it has provided that all valuable mineral deposits be reserved to the tribes and be set apart as incapable of allotment, and that such mineral deposits be in the future leased under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. . . .
Extracts from Curtis Act (30 Stat. at L. 495, chap. 517):
___ be nontransferable until after full title is acquired and shall be liable for no obligations contracted prior thereto by the allottee, and shall be nontaxable while so held.
___ purchaser, without expense to him, a deed conveying to him the title to such lands or town lots; and thereafter the purchase money shall become the property of the tribe; and all such moneys shall, when titles to all the lots in the towns belonging to any tribe have been thus perfected, be paid per capita to the members of the tribe. . . .
The argument that this gave to the Creek Indians less than they were already entitled to under their own laws is wide of the mark. We must not be understood as conceding that the Creek laws conferred any inheritable right, except to the improvements upon the land; certainly, no ampler right could be conferred as against the United States, in view of the limitations imposed upon the tribal title by the terms of the patent held by the tribe. But, passing this question, the chief difficulty was not in the Creek laws, but in the mode of their administration or mal- administration. And the manifest purpose of the Curtis act was not to displace but to recognize the communal titles, and to administer the use of lands for the equal benefit of the members of the tribe according to the true intent and meaning of the early treaties; the effort being to do what the tribal governments ought to have done, but were failing to do. That this meaning was placed upon the act by the Secretary of the Interior will appear from the administrative regulations issued to the Dawes Commission, excerpts from which are set forth in the marginal note, infra.
Goat v. United States, 224 U.S. 458, 469 , 56 S. L. ed. 841, 846, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541, is not in conflict with the view above expressed. That case dealt with the right of Seminole freedmen to convey the lands allotted to them in severalty pursuant to the agreement confirmed by the act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 567, chap. 542), and turned upon the question whether the restriction upon alienation imposed by that agreement had been violated. It was argued that the interest of the allottee was not of such a character as to be susceptible of transfer; [238 U.S. 284, 307] and-notwithstanding the provision in the agreement that each allottee should have 'the sole right of occupancy of the land so allotted to him'- the court rejected the argument on the ground that the allotments constituted the respective shares of the allottees in the tribal property, and were set apart to them as such, and that while the execution of the deeds was deferred, each had meanwhile a complete equitable interest in the land allotted to him. But this was because it was so agreed between the United States and the tribe, and has no bearing upon the proper construction of 11 of the Curtis act, which was intended to have effect without consent of the tribe, and was enacted at a time when it was seriously doubted by Congress whether, without such consent, the tribal title could be devested in favor of an allottee.
In Welty v. Reed, 219 Fed. 864, 867, the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, in passing upon another question, expressed the view that a Curtis act allottee had an inheritable estate or interest. This seems to have been based upon a mistaken view of what was decided in Goat v. United States.
From what we have said it results that, when Agnes Hawes, having received an allotment under the Curtis act, died in June, 1900, without other interest in the land, her interest died with her, and there was nothing upon which the Arkansas law of descent could operate. This would have been so, even had her allotment received the approval of the Secretary of the Interior under 12 of the Curtis act. As will presently appear, however, it must be deemed to have been a mere temporary or provisional allotment, not final even for the purposes of the Curtis act.
We are next to consider the effect upon such an allotment of the subsequent adoption of the Original Creek Agreement (act of March 1, 1901, 31 Stat. at L. 861, chap. 676). But, first, it will be well to briefly review what had been [238 U.S. 284, 308] done in the meantime under the Curtis act, in order that we may the better understand the situation with which Congress dealt in 1901
From the 6th Report of the Dawes Commission, p. 9, it appears that while the Atoka Agreement, as proposed by the Curtis act, was ratified by the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations at a special election held August 24, 1898, the amended Creek Agreement of September 27, 1897, was not ratified. 'Chief Isparhecher of the Creeks was slow to call an election, and it was not until November 1, 1898, that the agreement with that tribe was submitted in its amended form for ratification. While no active interest was manifested, the full-bloods and many of the freedmen were opposed to the agreement, and it failed of ratification by about one hundred and fifty votes. As a result the act of June 28, 1898, known as the Curtis act, became effective in that nation.'
The same report shows (p. 18) that the Commission found it impracticable to establish allotment offices in all five of the tribes, pursuant to the departmental regulations of October 7, 1898 (set forth below, in the margin), until a proper system and method of procedure should have been devised, established in one tribe, and demonstrated by experience as satisfactory. 'The initiatory work being experimental and requiring the close attention of the Commission, such office was established at Muskogee, in the Creek Nation, where the general office of the Commission is located, thus enabling the Commission to better superintend its operations. Due notice was given by publication, as required by the rules of the secretary, and the office opened for the selection of allotments on April 1, 1899.' . . . (Page 20): 'Up to and including June 30, 1899, three thousand eight hundred selections were filed on in the Creek Nation.'
The 7th Report, p. 31, stated that 'up to and including June 30, 1900, there have been 10,000 selections filed [238 U.S. 284, 309] in the Creek Nation, amounting approximately to two thirds of the total number of citizens, and covering the most thickly settled and improved lands of the Nation.'
These selections were treated as 'preliminary,' and the allotments as 'temporary.' The difficulties to be overcome before complete and final allotment were great and unprecedented. (7th Report, p. 12.) For instance, the Creek citizenship rolls had not been completed at the time of the making of the Agnes Hawes allotment, nor were they, indeed, until some time in the year 1902. It is also to be noted that 11 of the Curtis act does not authorize allotments of 160 acres or any other specified area, but contemplates a valuation of the allottable lands so as to give to each citizen his fair and equal share in value. Evidently, the Secretary of the Interior and the Dawes Commission realized that to postpone the beginning of allotments until the roll of citizenship of any tribe should be 'fully completed as provided by law'-there being disputes without number respecting questions of citizenship, and a mass of litigation arising out of them, as witness Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 467 , 43 S. L. ed. 1041, 1049, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722, which involved 166 appeals from the United States courts in the Indian Territory to this court, taken under the act of July 1, 1898, chap. 545 (30 Stat. at. L. 571, 591),-would have postponed indefinitely the inauguration of the allotment policy in the Indian Territory. The same result would have followed if allotment had been required to await a valuation, lot by lot, of all the allottable lands. But the immediate inauguration of the policy of allotment was urgently called for, not only to break up the system of land monopolies, productive of so much injustice to the individual Indians, but also to educate the Indians in the benefits to be derived from separate occupancy and enjoyment of the land, and thereby to gain popular support for the agreements that [238 U.S. 284, 310] were so earnestly desired as the only permanent relief from an intolerable situation.
There were over 3,000,000 acres of land in the domain of the Creek Nation, and approximately 16,000 Creek Indians and freedmen. It was easily to be seen that the tribe possessed sufficient allottable land to permit each citizen to take 160 acres, assuming the land values were approximately uniform. There were many reasons of convenience and of sentiment indicating the quarter section as a proper provisional allotment. It ran with the lines of the government surveys; it was the quantity permitted to be taken up by the citizen of the United States under the pre- emption and homestead laws (Rev. Stat. 2259, 2289, Comp. Stat. 1913, 4530); it was the quantity proposed to be allotted in the Choctaw- Chickasaw treaty of 1866, as has been stated; it was the quantity allotted to an Indian, the head of a family, under the general allotment act of 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 388, chap. 119, Comp. Stat. 1913, 4195); it was this area that was pointed out as proper to be allotted to an individual citizen of the Five Civilized Tribes by 15 of the act of 1893, chap. 209 ( 27 Stat. at L. 645); and, finally, by the amended Creek Agreement of September 27, 1897 (previously rejected by the tribe, but by the Curtis act required to be resubmitted), 160 acres were to be allotted to each citizen, the residue of allottable lands to be sold in tracts not exceeding that area.
And so it is not surprising that the Secretary of the Interior, in establishing regulations for the selection of allotments under the Curtis act, included a clause permitting each Creek citizen to take 160 acres. Extracts from these regulations are set forth in the margin. 3 They [238 U.S. 284, 311] contemplated temporary allotments, intended to be approximately equal to what each citizen would get from final allotment.
Meanwhile the Dawes Commission, after the rejection by the Creeks of the agreement submitted pursuant [238 U.S. 284, 312] to 30 of the Curtis act, negotiated another agreement with them on February 1, 1899, which, although ratified by the tribe on February 18, was rejected by Congress. 6th Report, pp. 10, 59. Still another agreement was negotiated under date of April 8, 1900 (7th Report, pp. 13, 47), which, with some amendments, was ratified by Congress in behalf of the United States by the act of March 1, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 861, chap. 676). It was subsequently ratified by the Creek Nation on May 25, 1901 (8th Report, pp. 11, 47; 32 Stat. at L. 1971), and is known as the Original Creek Agreement. It provided for a general allotment of all the tribal lands, except town sites, etc., 160 acres being allotted to each citizen; town lots to be sold; deeds or patents to be made to allottees and purchasers, conveying the tribal title; the residue of lands and all funds arising under the agreement to be used for equalizing allotments; and any deficiency to be supplied out of other funds of the tribe, 'so that the allotments of all citizens may be made equal in value, as nearly as may be.'
The sections especially bearing upon the present inquiry are 6, 7, and 28.4 These and the other provisions of the [238 U.S. 284, 313] Agreement respecting the allotment of lands show that it was the intention of the parties to accept and confirm the allotment work already performed by the Dawes Commission, with the same effect as if it had been done after the ratification of the agreement. This was to adopt what had been done in dividing the lands so far as it had been done consistently with the provisions of the Agreement, and thus save not only the time and expense of the
___ of descent and distribution of the Creek Nation, free from such limitation.'
... * *
There were reasons for an express ratification of the allotment work previously done by the Commission. As already pointed out, the allotments had been tentatively and provisionally made in tracts of 160 acres, upon the order of the Secretary of the Interior, and without express authorization of acreage allotments in the Curtis act; they had been made before completion of the membership rolls and without appraisement of the lands; and, of course, they had been made without the consent of the tribe. [238 U.S. 284, 315] But it is argued by plaintiffs in error that there is no provision of the Agreement that can be construed to apply the Creek law of descent to Curtis act allotments; that 28 provides for an allotment to the heirs according to Creek law in two cases only: (a) where a citizen living on April 1, 1899, died prior to the ratification of the agreement 'before receiving his allotment of lands and distributive share,' etc.; and (b) where the citizen living April 1, 1899, died after the ratification of the agreement 'before receiving his allotment,' etc. It is insisted that Agnes Hawes did not fall within either of these classes, since she died before the ratification of the agreement, but after receiving her allotment. It is also insisted that 7 put in force the Creek law of descent only with respect to the homestead 40 acres; and since the Curtis act had no provision for homesteads, the allotment, when made, was not impressed with homestead characteristics, and no part of the land allotted to heirs was impressed with such characteristics by the Agreement. The result of this argument, if sound, would be that all Curtis act allotments (over 10,000 in number, and covering more than 1,600,000 acres; 8th report, p. 32), and all allotments made after the ratification of the Original Agreement except homestead allotments under 7 and a limited class of allotments under 28, would descend according to the Arkansas laws of descent, while the exceptional allotments, comparatively of little importance, would descend according to the Creek laws.
Even if this construction accorded with the strict letter of the Agreement, it savors too much of refinement to be accepted as an exposition of the true intent and meaning of an engagement made between the government of the United States and an Indian tribe. Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, 10 , 44 S. L. ed. 49, 53, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 675 , 56 S. L. ed. 941, 945, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 565. The adoption of the Creek laws of descent was a concession to the Indians, who were, of course, more familiar with their [238 U.S. 284, 316] own laws than with chapter 49 of Mansfield's Digest, and were no doubt materially influenced in giving consent to the treaty by the fact that thereafter their lands would descend just as their personal property had descended in former times. To confine the operation of the Creek laws to the few and exceptional cases, and leave the Arkansas laws in effect respecting the greater part of the tribal domain, would be to keep the word of promise to the ear, while breaking it to the hope. At the same time, it would be inconsistent with the purpose expressed in 6 to put Curtis act allotments on a parity with allotments afterwards made. The confusion that would result from applying two variant systems of law at one and the same time, with respect to lands lying side by side and otherwise indistinguishable, is, of course, apparent. The suggested construction must be rejected.
In our opinion the equitable title to the Agnes Hawes allotment was vested in her heirs according to Creek law by the clear meaning of 28, which says: 'All citizens who were living on the first day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, entitled to be enrolled . . . shall be placed upon the rolls . . . and if any such citizen has died since that time . . . before receiving his allotment of lands and distributive share of all the funds of the tribe, the lands and money to which he would be entitled if living shall descend,' etc. Although she had been placed in possession of an allotment, she had not in her lifetime 'received' it, in the sense of the Agreement, for this contemplated ownership in fee, and she had received only a provisional surface right. Besides, while 6 in confirming the allotment brought it under those provisions of the Agreement that contemplated a patent in fee, it was still only a partial dividend out of the property of the tribe. There remained something else contemplated by the Agreement and not received by Agnes Hawes in her lifetime, namely, her 'distributive share of [238 U.S. 284, 317] all the funds of the tribe.' Thus we have the precise situation contemplated by 28, which in that case confers the lands and money, to which she would have been entitled if living, upon her heirs according to Creek law. This accords with the view adopted by the Oklahoma supreme court in Barnett v. Way, 29 Okla. 780, 785, 119 Pac. 418. And see Washington v. Miller, 235 U.S. 422, 425 , 59 S. L. ed.--, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 119.
Were there doubt of the correctness of this view, and were 28 as restricted in its effect as is contended by plaintiff in error, the same result would follow from a fairly liberal reading of 7, such as would have to be adopted in construing an agreement with Indians. That section begins by saying that 'Lands allotted to citizens hereunder' shall not be encumbered or sold to secure or satisfy any debt contracted prior to the date of the deed to the allottee, and shall not be alienable within five years from the ratification of the agreement except with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Then follow clauses imposing restrictions solely upon the homestead 40 acres, and the section ends by declaring that the homestead shall remain, after the death of the allottee, for the use and support of children born to him after the ratification of the Agreement, but in the absence of such issue 'he may dispose of his homestead by will, free from limitation herein imposed, and if this be not done, the land shall descend to his heirs, according to the laws of descent and distribution of the Creek Nation, free from such limitation.' It is reasonable to suppose that the Indians, when giving approval to this agreement, would understand that the land which was thus to descend free from limitation included as well the land to which the limitation had never applied as that to which it had applied, but respecting which it had expired. And they would understand the provisions of 28 (if limited as is here contended), to apply the laws of descent and distribution of the Creek Nation to allotments made under the peculiar circumstances [238 U.S. 284, 318] there provided for, in order to bring those allotments into conformity, as to descent and otherwise, with allotments of the general class, including allotments made prior to the ratification of the agreement, which by 6 were 'as to appraisement and all things else' to be governed by the provisions of the agreement. Such was the view expressed by the supreme court of Oklahoma in De Graffenreid v. Iowa Land & T. Co. (1908) 20 Okla. 687, 709-711, 95 Pac. 624. In Bartlett v. Okla Oil Co. 218 Fed. 380, 385, the United States district court for the eastern district of Oklahoma passed upon the question of the descent of a Creek allotment held by a fullblood Indian of that tribe who died November 17, 1907, one day after the admission of Oklahoma as a state. It being in dispute whether the Creek law, the Arkansas law, or the Oklahoma law of descent and distribution applied, the court, in the course of a historical review of the legislation of Congress, said (p. 385) that under the Original Creek Agreement the descent of surplus lands was not especially provided for, and therefore was controlled by the laws of Arkansas, in force in the Indian Territory by virtue of the act of June 7, 1897 [30 Stat. at L. 62, chap. 3], and June 28, 1898 (the Curtis act); but this was clearly obiter.
Under either of the views that we have expressed, the Agnes Hawes allotment, if it was uncontested, if it did not include public property, and was not otherwise affected by the Original Creek Agreement, was confirmed by 6. That it was not among the excepted classes is sufficiently evidenced by the subsequent action of the Dawes Commission in awarding it to the heirs of Agnes. That which had been tentative and provisional then became, by force of the provisions of the Agreement, final and conclusive. The result was to vest a complete equitable title in her 'heirs,' to be determined according to the Creek laws of descent and distribution; and, upon familiar principles, their interest, being vested, was not devested by the subsequent [238 U.S. 284, 319] adoption of the act of May 27, 1902, chap. 888, effective July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. at L. 258; Joint Res. No. 24, 32 Stat. at L. 742), or the Supplemental Creek Agreement (act of June 30, 1902, chap. 1323, 6, 32 Stat. at L. 501; effective Auggust 8, 1902, 32 Stat. at L. 2021), which substituted the Arkansas laws. See Ballinger v. United States, 216 U.S. 240, 249 , 54 S. L. ed. 464, 468, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 338. Sizemore v. Brady, 235 U.S. 441, 448 , 59 S. L. ed.--, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 135, is distinguishable, because there the allotment in question was not selected or made until after the Supplemental Agreement went into effect.
It is undisputed that, according to Creek law, the husband was entitled to take a half interest in his wife's property if she died without will, at least, in case there were no children. And it is now settled that an intermarried noncitizen husband could inherit under the tribal laws the same as if he were a citizen. Reynolds v. Fewell, 236 U.S. 58, 63 , 59 S. L. ed.--, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 230; Shellenbarger v. Fewell, 236 U.S. 68 , 59 L. ed.--, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234.
It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the subsequent issue of a patent to the 'Heirs of Agnes Hawes,' without naming them, conveyed the legal title to those persons upon whom the equitable title was conferred by the Original Agreement.
The restrictions upon alienation contained in the Original Agreement did not apply to allotments made on behalf of deceased members of the tribe. Skelton v. Dill, 235 U.S. 206, 210 , 59 S. L. ed. --, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 60. Indeed, all restrictions upon alienation as to allottees not of Indian blood (except minors and except as to homesteads) were removed by the act of April 21, 1904 (33 Stat. at l. 189, 204, chap. 1402).
Therefore, the conveyance on June 22, 1904, by Ratus Hawes to defendant in error passed to the latter the undivided half interest in the lands in question.
The further point is raised that defendant in error (plaintiff below) was barred from maintaining his present action by a decree dismissing a previous suit, brought by him prior to statehood in the United States court for [238 U.S. 284, 320] the western district of the Indian Territory, against Louis and Peggie Woodward, for a partition of the same land. This contention-equivalent to the plea of res judicata-was rejected by the state court upon the ground that the partition suit was brought in equity, and was dismissed because the petition showed that the land was held by the defendants adversely to plaintiff, and because he could not maintain an action for partition in equity without first establishing his title by an action in ejectment. The decision was rested upon the authority of numerous cases cited from the supreme court of Arkansas, the practice of that state having been put in force in the Indian Territory by act of Congress. We concur in the result, and need add nothing to the reasoning of the state court.
One or two other questions were argued, but they are not within the assignments of error-indeed, were not raised in the court whose judgment is under review.
Judgment affirmed.
[ Footnote 1 ] Reference List of Annual Reports of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, transmitted to Congress in connection with the reports of the Secretary of the Interior, and printed as House Documents.
1st Report, Nov. 20, 1894, House Ex. Doc., Part 5, 53d Cong., 3d Sess ., Vol. 14, pp. lix.-lxx.
2d Report, Nov. 14, 1895, House Doc. No. 5, 54th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 14, pp. lxxix.-xcvii.
3d Report, Nov. 28, 1896, House Doc. No. 5, 54th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 12, pp. cl.-clv.
4th Report, Oct. 11, 1897, House Doc. No. 5, 55th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 12, pp. cxvii.-cxl.
5th Report, Oct. 3, 1898, House Doc. No. 5, 55th Cong., 3d Sess., Vol. 15, pp. 1051-1090.
6th Report, Sept. 1, 1899, House Doc. No. 5, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 19, pp. 3-178.
7th Report, Sept. 1, 1900, House Doc. No. 5, 56th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 28, pp. 5-79.
8th Report, Oct. 1, 1901, House Doc. No. 5, 57th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 24, pp. 5-221.
9th Report, July 20, 1902, House Doc. No. 5, 57th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 18, pp. 180-217.
10th Report, Sept. 30, 1903, House Doc. No. 5, 58th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 20, pp. 1-190.
11th Report, Oct. 15, 1904, House Doc. No. 5, 58th Cong., 3d Sess., Vol. 20, pp. 1-198.
12th Report, June 30, 1905, House Doc. No. 5, 59th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 19, pp. 579-640.
[ Footnote 2 ] Extracts from Senate Committee Report No. 377, May 7, 1894, 53d Cong., 2d Sess., vol 5:
[ Footnote 3 ] Extracts from Rules and Regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior for the selection and renting of prospective allotments under the Curtis act. (Sixth Annual Report of Commission, House Doc. No. 5, 56th Cong., 1st Sess. vol. 19, p. 81, etc.)
tribe effective and valid such member, or the head of each family, shall be required to appear in person at the office within his tribe and to make application . . . and thereafter he may occupy, control and rent the same for any period not exceeding one year, by any one contract, until lands are in fact allotted to him under terms of said act, and will be protected therein by the government from interference by all other persons whomsoever. . . .
Promulgated October 7, 1898.
Amendments to Rules and Regulations of October 7, 1898, made April 7, 1899.
[ Footnote 4 ] Extracts from Original Creek Agreement, act of March 1, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 861, chap. 676).


text:
41st annual Walter Gerlach Livestock Show and Sale
The Walter Gerlach Livestock Show and Sale kicked off Monday with poultry and rabbit judging and continues through Thursday. A Northside ISD tradition since 1973, it features hundreds of Future Farmers of America and 4H students vying to impress judges and perhaps earn money, since the animals that "place" in the show - which also include goats, lambs, swine and steer - can be sold at an auction set for 11 a.m. Saturday. Last year's sales totaled more than $600,000 for students and scholarships. The event is at the Gerlach Show Barn at 18945 Babcock Road.


text:
Making a call with hidden caller identification
Turning caller identification on my mobile phone on or off
Copying contacts between my SIM and my mobile phone
Sending pictures and video clips from my mobile phone
Setting an alarm on my mobile phone
Want to transfer files using NFC (Near Field Communication)? It's easy, but you need to turn on NFC before you can use this function.
Choose option
Choose one of the following options:
Transfer contact, go to 1a.
Transfer picture or video clip, go to 1b.
1a - Transfer contact
Tap the menu icon.
Tap People.
Tap the required contact.
1b - Transfer picture or video clip
Tap Gallery.
Go to the required folder.
Tap the required picture or the required video clip.
Transfer files using NFC
Hold your mobile phone and the receiving device back to back.
When Touch to beam is displayed, tap anywhere on the display to start the transfer.
Follow the instructions on the display to finish the transfer.
Return to the home screen
Tap the home icon to return to the home screen.
Tap anywhere to dismiss
Share this article via email! Just fill in these details and the characters in the box.
Fields marked with * are mandatory.


text:
Answer a call from your surfboard. Ask Siri to send a message. Stream your favorite songs on your run. And do it all while leaving your phone behind. Introducing Apple Watch Series 3 with cellular. Now you have the freedom to go with just your watch.
Make calls and send texts with just your watch.
Stream 40 million songs with Apple Music right from your wrist.
Ask Siri to set a reminder, send a calendar invitation, or give you directions, all without your phone.
Leave your phone at home and still get alerts from your favorite apps.
See how far and high you go.
Always ready for the pool or ocean.
Keep tabs on your resting, walking, and workout recovery heart rate.
Height: 42.5mm
Width: 36.4mm


text:
- Classico 53mm - U-Boat Classico 53 CAS 2 D (UB-004)
Official Authorised Dealer
Seen it at a lower price? View our Price Promise
Classic for a good reason. There isn't a single timepiece that embodies the U-BOAT brand like this one. A case made of 316L Steel, a dial designed with elegance and a calf leather strap to boot. With a high calibre U-77 movement, U-BOAT is big on precision. Also available in 45mm
Buy your new watch from C W Sellors - Jura Watches.
Try it on at home
If you do not like it, you can return it for an exchange, credit or full refund.
Let us adjust your bracelet
We can adjust the metal bracelet to fit your wrist size, see our size guide
Get free delivery
Buy online and we will ship your watch free and ready to use, fully insured by us and delivered to your door.
Free Gift
Watch Winder or Watch toolkit or heart necklet plus free delivery, sizing and gift wrapping.
Accessories for this watch
Please contact us if you need any straps for this watch.


text:
Foot and Ankle Doctor in New Berlin, Wisconsin
Surgical Podiatrists Providing Effective Treatment for Foot, Ankle & Heel Pain
New Berlin's best foot and ankle doctors are dedicated to excellence in all aspects of podiatry. Advanced Foot & Ankle of Wisconsin is made up of experienced podiatrists putting the CARE back into patient care.
You don't have to live with chronic pain in your feet, ankles or heels. Our specialists diagnose and treat all types of pain, swelling, stinging and discomfort in toes, nails and the entire foot and ankle so you can return to the activities you enjoy.
Whether you need diabetic foot care, foot therapy, ankle surgery or any other type of podiatric services, contact Advanced Foot & Ankle of Wisconsin to start feeling better, faster.
Podiatrists at our W. Layton St. and S. 27th St. podiatry clinics serve patients living in New Berlin, Milwaukee, West Allis, Greenfield and the surrounding areas:
Milwaukee, WI USA 53221
Milwaukee, WI USA 53221
Contact a New Berlin podiatrist for more information or to schedule an appointment.
"Dr. Christensen is the best. He takes the time to make sure you have a complete understanding of everything. Great personality easy to communicate with. He also has a great sense of humor. As a surgeon he is awesome!! I would recommend him to any and everyone."
"After being referred to Dr. Kokat I checked his bio online which was very impressive. I have seen him several times for different issues for several years, and I couldn't be more happy with the outcome of the surgery and follow up. His personal approach is a 5 star service."
"My doctor, Dr. Christensen, is a great doctor. He understands his patients."
Read more happy patient reviews of our Milwaukee foot doctors!
Pain Relief & Lasting Results for Plantar Fasciitis, Bunions & Arthritis
Foot and ankle problems can result from illness, pregnancy, sports or sudden accidents. If you have a workers compensation injury claim, suffered foot or ankle injuries in a car accident or need custom orthotics to relieve daily foot strain, our experienced foot doctors and friendly staff can help.
Advanced Foot & Ankle of Wisconsin has the experience, equipment & expertise to diagnose and treat any common or uncommon foot problem including:
- Fungal, ingrown or painful toenails
- Ankle pain
- Corns
- Heel spurs
- Hammertoes
- Cuboid foot
- Morton's Neuroma
Don't let foot and ankle pain keep you from working, playing and spending quality time with people you care about. Our foot and ankle specialists use the latest technology and compassionate, individualized care to identify, heal and prevent all types of foot and ankle problems.
Contact New Berlin's top foot doctors today and find out how easy and affordable expert foot care can be!
Hales Corners * Greendale * Greenfield * New Berlin * West Allis * Cudahy * St. Francis * West Milwaukee * South Milwaukee * Burlington * Brookfield


text:
Programs Overview
Every year more than 2,000 children and families from throughout the country and around the world participate in The Barton Center for Diabetes Education's year-round, fun-filled summer camp, weekend, school vacation programs, and outreach programs. Click Here for Picture Galleries.
The focus of our programs is fun and support; the goal is to educate children and their families on how to manage the daily rigors of diabetes, so they can live fuller and healthier lives. At camp, we strive to incorporate The Barton Center's core values into all that we do. These values are incorporated into every activity we run, each staff member's actions, and every camper attitude. These core values include:
- Having fun
- Building a community
- Inspiring growth through individual challenge
- Motivating healthy lifestyles
- Fostering an appreciation of self and others
Our Healthy Stars program, new in 2011, combined the successful Barton Stars program introduced in 2006 with the Real Stars program first introduced at Camp Joslin in 2002.
The Healthy Stars program utilizes the latest research and is designed to help children develop and maintain good habits for healthy living with diabetes. Our unified focus is on the critical items needed to BALANCE for a healthier and happier life. Our goal with the Healthy Stars initiative is to provide a FUN way for campers to reinforce and learn good habits that they can retain and apply when they go home. For more information about our Healthy Stars program, please click here.
Summer Programs
- Clara Barton Camp, residential summer camp for girls ages 6-16, in North Oxford, MA
- Camp Joslin, residential summer camp for boys ages 6-16, in Charlton, MA
- NEW--Clara Barton Camp & Camp Joslin Coed Week, coed residential summer camp, ages 6-16, either North Oxford or Charlton, MA
- Vermont Overnight Camp, residential coed program for ages 6-16 in South Hero, VT
- Day Camps in Greenwich, CT; Worcester, MA; Danvers, MA; and Long Island, NY, for boys and girls ages 5-15
- Adventure Program for boys and girls ages 13-18
Fall, Winter Spring Programs
- Family Programs for the entire family
- Weekend Programs for children with diabetes and their siblings or friends ages 6-16
Children and adults alike share the triumphs and tribulations of living with diabetes. Children no longer feel different or alone, and their parents can relax knowing that their sons and daughters are in a safe and secure environment. All programs feature low staff to participant ratios, expert medical staff, well-trained, hard working counselors - many of whom were once campers and have diabetes themselves.
Campers are admitted on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration for summer camp begins each year in January. Registrations are accepted for year-round programs until each program is full. Camperships are available for resident camps, day camps, and year-round programs on a first-come, first-served sliding-scale basis. For information regarding financial assistance for any of our other programs, please contact our office at 508-987-2056 or email email@example.com.


text:
Gift cards and vouchers
Do you sell gift cards or use vouchers - and where can I get my hands on it?
Unfortunately, we are not currently able to supply gift cards online or accept any vouchers.
BUT - we have it planned and in our pipeline for future availability.
If you want to be notified, once we do sell gift cards and accept vouchers, we suggest you sign up to our newsletter.


text:
First Look at live draft room for DYNASTY League Baseball Online
When a name was contemplated for this Baseball simulation back in 1992, the idea was that since league play would be central to the game that "league" would have to be part of the name. Dynasty denotes continuity so there you have it. Translated DYNASTY League Baseball equals – continuous draft league play. Yes, you can also play a solitaire replay or come up with any other number of play formats with the Board version, but continuous draft league play was what DYNASTY League Baseball was always envisioned to be.
The debut of DYNASTY League Baseball Online last November made real time multi-player a reality for the first time not just for DYNASTY League Baseball, but for any Baseball simulation game. Greatest Team bracket tournaments being updated in real time have turned out to be wildy popular with some players playing as many as 200 live multi-player games in a three month time frame. The Greatest Team bracket tournament experience has been thrilling and just recently the first 64 team bracket tournaments debuted as the ultimate challenge.
Next, Greatest Team leagues debuted in March of this year with a new scheduler and for the first time league players could easily play multi-player games and see updated scores, stats, leaders and standings in real time. This is a first for Baseball simulations and is a dream come true eliminating the hassle of IP adddresses, router settings, failed connnections and importing and exporting of files to a central Commissioner.
One of the challenges with draft leagues has been where do you have the draft. If you have a local league and use the Board game the way the SNBL used to play in Brookfield, WI it isn't an issue, but it is a issue with players scattered all over the country.
Enter DYNASTY League Baseball Online's live draft room. Much more than a draft room, the live draft room shows all available players in the draft and when you mouse over a player you see his player card right in the draft room. How cool is that?
DYNASTY League Baseball was the first baseball simulation to have Official League rules. Basically they are the original Rotisserie Baseball rules adapted for Baseball simulations. If you want to know how DYNASTY League Baseball draft leagues work including contracts and bidding, all the information is in the DYNASTY League Baseball Official Rulebook at the link below the Dennis Martinez and Paul Molitor player cards.
Drafts in DYNASTY League Baseball are live bidding drafts and you can see in the upper right-hand corner of the draft room screen shot below the area to enter your bid on the player who is up for bid (shown just to the left). There also is a timing counter that serves as the live auctioneer which helps speed up drafts significantly.
In the upper left-hand corner is the real time update of the balance of $ every team has available as well as the maximum bid they can make for the player currently being bid on (you can't bid more than than the $ you have left remaining).
There is more to come with the live draft room, but welcome to your first look!


text:
George Strait to Hit the Field With Dallas Cowboys on Opening Night
George Strait may not be an NFL football player, but he's hitting the field with the Dallas Cowboys this Sunday (Sept. 8) during their season opener against the New York Giants. The question is, will he wear a cowboy hat ... or football gear?
Strait, the King of Country Music, will join the Cowboys at AT&T Stadium, where he'll serve as an honorary captain for the coin toss prior to kickoff. Of course, the legend is no stranger to the home of the Cowboys, having performed in 2009 as the first event ever held at the venue.
Although the 'I Cross My Heart' hitmaker has sold over 68 million albums, influenced country music for more than 32 years and charted a jaw-dropping 60 No. 1 singles, being an honorary captain is a first. If anyone can handle it, Strait can.
And the fun won't end after coin toss. On Monday (Sept. 9), Strait is expected to hold a press conference from the stadium regarding his 2014 the Cowboy Rides Away Tour, and everyone will be waiting eagerly for that announcement -- especially after his 2013 dates sold out so quickly. The conference will stream live starting at noon ET.
It's a relief that country music will be so well represented this football season -- Carrie Underwood will begin her role as the voice of 'Sunday Night Football' this weekend, replacing longtime frontwoman Faith Hill. With Strait serving as honorary captain for the Cowboys, it's the season to watch for country music fans!


text:
Access Amcs Faa Login account by entering your user id and password. If you are looking for Amcs Faa Login official portal for access your dashboard then you can access official links are given below.
If you want to access Amcs Faa Login Portal then you must have Amcs Faa Login details and you need to know correct web-address to access it. Below are listed Amcs Faa Login login link including creating new account, New user sign up and Many more.


text:
I recently discovered a new place to take the dogs on our weekend adventures. It has everything we love.
There are hiking trails through the woods.
There are hiking trails through fields.
Some of the trails are quite wide and allow us to spread out.
Some of the hiking trails have great views.
The trails are well marked.
The hiking trails are wonderful, but the reason we first went to this place (and what keeps us going back) is this:
The dogs finally have a place to swim.
Note that when Luka swims he does not get his tail wet. He holds it up out of the water like a flag or a sail.
When they're not swimming the dogs enjoy exploring.
They also enjoy tearing along the shoreline like maniacs.
Sadie barks with joy.
Luka sits quietly and does his impression of a drowned rat.
The dogs also take a moment to enjoy the day.
We've definitely found a new favorite spot.


text:
Major Museums
From the The Mob Museum to Native American history and culture, the Las Vegas area contains many different types of museums. Come and experience the beauty and natural history of the region.
Atomic Testing Museum/NTS Historical Foundation
The museum, which opened in March 2005, documents the history of nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site in the desert north of Las Vegas. nationalatomictestingmuseum.org
Bodies the Exhibition - The Luxor Las Vegas
Celebrate the wonder of the human form at Bodies, The Exhibition, a unique show about the amazing and complex machine we call the human body. luxor.com/entertainment/bodies.aspx
Boulder City - Hoover Dam Museum
The Boulder City/Hoover Dam Museum tells the story of the Boulder Canyon Project as it was experienced by the men and women who braved the Southern Nevada desert to build Hoover Dam and Boulder City. http://www.travelnevada.com/discover/unique-nevada/hoover-dam
Bruno's Indian Museum
Located in Boulder City, this museum features a large collection of turquoise as well as an art gallery and studio where you can see artists at work. 1306 Nevada Highway, Boulder City, Nv. 702-293-4865
Carroll Shelby Museum
Located at the entrance of the Las Vegas Motor Speedway, the Carroll Shelby Museum exhibits rare cars, historic racers and unique memorabilia. carrollshelbymerchandise.com/shelby_museum_and_cafe
Central Nevada Museum
This museum chronicles important events and figures that left their mark on Nye, Esmeralda county, and other surrounding areas in central Nevada. tonopahnevada.com
Clark County Heritage Museum
Located on the edge of the Valley, the Clark County Heritage Museum provides hours of fun while teaching visitors about the rich and colorful history of Las Vegas and its surrounding communities. clarkcountynv.gov/depts/parks/pages/clark-county-museum.aspx
Discovery Children's Museum
Since opening to the public in September 1990, Lied Discovery Children's Museum has established itself as an important community resource, becoming one of the metropolitan area's major educational institutions serving children and families. discoverykidslv.org
George L. Sturman - Museum of Fine Art
The collection at this museum features contemporary works from many renowned artists like Salvador Dali, Robert De Niro and Henri Matisse. A large collection of African American and comic strip art is also on display. 107 East Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, Nv. 89104
Goldwell Open Air Museum
Located just outside the ghost town of Rhyolite, Nevada, this museum is a 7.8 acre outdoor sculpture park that features the work of Belgian artist Albert Szukalski. Admission is free and is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. goldwellmuseum.org
Hammargren Home of Nevada History
Dr. Hammargren's home is famous for historical collections of Nevada history. There, you can expect to find Las Vegas memorabilia, signs, stage production props and other unique artifacts from around the world. nevadadays.org
Howard W. Cannon Aviation Museum
Physically located inside the McCarran International Airport, this museum provides visitors with the history of commercial and general aviation in southern Nevada. The collection starts with the first flight in 1920, and continues through the introduction of jets. clarkcountynv.gov/depts/parks/pages/cannon-aviation-museum.aspx
Hollywood Car Museum
Open daily, Hollywood Car Museum is a giant museum that showcases movie-star automobiles including Herbie, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang & Bond cars." http://hollywoodcarsmuseum.com/
Las Vegas Natural History Museum
Through its interactive exhibits, educational programs and the preservation of its collections, the museum promotes an understanding and appreciation of the world's wildlife, ecosystems and cultures. The most recent exhibit is located in the Egyptian Pavilion and features a replica of King Tut's Tomb, the greatest archaeological find in the world's history. lvnhm.org
Lost City Museum
Located on an actual archaeological site at Pueblo Grande de Nevada (Nevada's Lost City), this museum interprets the artifacts left behind by the Ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi) occupation of the Moapa Valley from the 1st through 13th centuries A.D. nevadaweb.com/lostcity
Lost Vegas Historic Gambling Museum and Store
Located at downtown Neonopolis, this museum features more than 5,000 unique historic items and memorabilia chronicling the city's past. The retail gift shop offers a wide array of souvenirs, like hotel ashtrays and matchbooks.
The Mob Museum
Located in the heart of downtown Las Vegas on Stewart Avenue and Third Street, this museum is an interactive attraction showcasing the history of Las Vegas's famed gangsters. themobmuseum.org
Neon Museum
The Neon Museum was established in 1996 to collect and exhibit neon signs, the classic Las Vegas art form. Dedicated individuals from the private sector as well as corporate and government entities have worked tirelessly to promote the preservation of these national treasures. The Neon Museum's mission is to collect, preserve, study and exhibit neon signs and associated artifacts to inspire educational and cultural enrichment for diverse members of our community. Refurbished signs are on display throughout the city and the self-guided walking tour is highly recommended. neonmuseum.org
Nevada State Museum and Historical Society
The Nevada State Museum & Historical Society presents exhibits on the early people and history of southern Nevada, fossils, important geological formations and the state's plants and animals. The research library specializes in historic newspaper indexes, materials on microfilm, map, photograph and manuscript collections. museums.nevadaculture.org
Searchlight Museum
Located in the Searchlight Community Center, the museum focuses on this fascinating historical community founded in 1898. Searchlight takes its name from the Searchlight Mine. The local mining history is a prominent part of the museum's display. http://searchlighthistoricmuseum.org
Southern Nevada Museum of Fine Art
The museum features more than 7,000 square feet of exhibit area with a main gallery, a special exhibitions gallery and a small works gallery. Plans include an expansion into the adjacent space for a gallery dedicated to bigger works like sculptures. The museum opened in 2003 and can be found in the Neonopolis (at the Fremont Experience). snmfa.com
Titanic: The Artifact Exhibition
Located in the Luxor Las Vegas, the 25,000-square-foot exhibit features numerous items from the Titanic, including luggage, whistles, floor tiles from the first-class smoking room, a window frame from the Verandah Cafe and an unopened bottle of champagne with a 1900 vintage. In addition, the exhibit features a piece of Titanic's hull, a full-scale recreation of the Grand Staircase, as well as a newly expanded outer Promenade Deck...complete with the frigid temperatures felt on that fateful April night. luxor.com/entertainment/titanic.aspx
UNLV Marjorie Barrick Museum of Natural History
Located on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas campus, the Marjorie Barrick Museum educates visitors about the native cultures of the southwest United States and Mesoamerica. The exhibit hall also features a 2,500 square foot area hosting international, national and regional works. unlv.edu/barrickmuseum
Walker African-American Museum
This part museum & part research center is designed to preserve and promote the history of African Americans. This temporary location offers a variety of materials including books, magazines, dolls, stamps, postcards and trade cards documenting the accomplishments of people of African-Americans. a2zlasvegas.com/otherside/museums/walker_african-american_museum.html