Summary

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Board of Commissioners of Jackson County Kan v…

If it be said that the default of the United States should not be charged against its Indian wards, a choice has to be made between equally innocent victims of official neglect from 1918 until 1936 in the administration of the Indian law. The loss of interest to the United States because of the conduct of its officials in the Sanborn and Billings cases, supra, had to be borne by the innocent public. We think as to interest here, the loss should remain where it has fallen. If thereby Indians are out of pocket, they should not be made whole by putting Jackson County unfairly out of pocket.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Board of Commissioners of Jackson County Kan v…

The failure of Congress to stipulate that a State-as here-must pay interest to an Indian when the State law permits interest to no one, [7] is entirely consistent with the congressional policy of steadily extending the operation of the States' laws over their resident Indians. Congress-with exclusive plenary power to legislate concerning the Indians-has not provided for recovery of interest from Kansas, and the courts have no constitutional power to create the right.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Board of Commissioners of Jackson County Kan v…

In ordinary suits where the Government seeks, as between itself and a private litigant, to enforce a money claim ultimately derived from a federal law, thus implying a wish of Congress to collect what it deemed fairly owing according to the traditional notions of Anglo-American law, this Court has chosen that rule as to interest which comports best with general notions of equity.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature