The Tomahawk. [volume] (White Earth, Becker County, Minn.) 1903-192?, 1925-01-22
Analysis Of the Supreme
Court Decision in the
Morrison Case.

The decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States recently
handed down in the case entitled
Morrison vs.. Work, Secretary of
the Interior, and others, involving
the administration of the estate of
the Chippewa IndianSin Minnesota
embraced within the agreements
of 1889 clears up several questions
upon which there has been wide
difference of opinion in the past.
While the DEGREES of the lower
courts, on the Bill, were affirmed.
the afirmance by the highest court
was. upon different reasons and
grounds than those assigned by the
courts below. The decision of the
highest court appears to make
certain and definite the liability of
the United States to the Indians
for all losses they have sustained,
or may hereafter sustain, by the
failure of the United States to ad-
minister the estate in conformity
with the agreements of 1889.
The court holds that the property
of the Indians was ceded by them
to the United States pursuant to
agreements entered into under the
Act of January IA, 1889. The
court finds that the United States
has exercised, and is now exercis-
ing, UNDER THE CLAIM
THAT. THE PROPERTY is
TRIBAL, the powers of a guardian
and trustee in possession" Nor.
rison claimed that by virtue of the
Act of 1889 and the agreements
made hereunder. the ceded lands
ceased to be tribal property and
the rights of the Indians in the
lands and the fund into which the
proceeds of all sales. was to be de
posted became fixed as individual
property. The Court of Appeals
of the District of Columbia held
Morrison's contention to be un.
founded. The Supreme Court of
the United States finds that it is
unnecessary to determine the
correctness of the ruling of the
Court of Appeals, in view of the
fact that the United States has
been and is now treating the pro-
perty as tribal. The court says
that in view of this situation:
''Tbe claim of the United States
is, at least, a substantial one. To
interfere with its management and
disposition of the lands or the
funds by injoining its officials,
would interfere with the perform
ance of government functions and
vitality affect interests of the Unit
ed States. 1t is, therefore. an
indispensable party to this suit. 1t
was not joined as defendant. Nor
could it have been, as Congress has
not consented that it be sued. The
bill, so far as it complains of acts
done pursuant to the latter legis-
lation, was properly dismissed
for this reason, among others.''
Accordingly the court held that
it could not determine the consti-
tutionality of the six acts of Con-
gress assailed by Morrison without
the United States being a party to
the suit and being afforded an op-
portunity to be heard.
'Morrison's bill contained three
specific charges that the admins
trative officers, acting outside of
their lawful authority, were dis.
posing of the estate to the loss and
injury of the Indians. On this
point the court holds: ..
/, Each of these three grounds
of complaint involves, in essence,
either the charge of failure to pay
into the Treasury to the credit of
the Chippewas money which should
be credited to them or the making
of q payment from the accruing
interest for purpose not authoor-
ixed. II through officials Of the
. - -s.'