Summary

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Pam-to-Pee v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The United States objected to the filing of two petitions, and the court below, overruling a motion to dismiss the later petition, consolidated the causes, and dealt with them as one. The two classes of claimants unite in the appeal to this court.
They agree in complaining of the insufficiency of the sum allowed the Indians by the decree of the court below; but they disagree, as between themselves, in respect to the division of the moneys awarded by the decree. The Indians represented by John Critcher claim the entire fund.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Pam-to-Pee v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The first controverted question is as to whom is due the annuity of $2,000 for 20 years, granted by the last clause of the supplemental treaty of September 27, 1833. The petitioners claim the entire amount, $38,000. The United States contend that this amount is distributable between the Indians who went west under the provisions of the treaty of September 26, 1833, and those who remained in Michigan under the supplemental treaty of September 27th, in proportion to their respective numbers.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature