Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone United States v. Algoma Lumber Company Same…

The action of Congress in authorizing the sale of the timber, and the contracts prescribed under its authority by departmental regulations and approved by the Secretary, are to be viewed as the means chosen for the exercise of the power of the government to protect the rights and beneficial ownership of the Indians. The means are adapted to that end. Neither the United States nor any officer purporting to act on its behalf is named a party to the contract.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone United States v. Algoma Lumber Company Same…

Infirmities, if any, in respondents' contracts with the Indians could not impose on the United States a liability which the contracts do not purport to undertake in its behalf.
As the Court of Claims found that the contracts for the sale of timber on allotted lands were entered into by individual allottees as prescribed by § 8 of the Act of 1910, they stand on no different footing, as obligations of the United States, from the tribal contract or similar contracts entered into under the Act of 1889.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone United States v. Algoma Lumber Company Same…

Under the provisions of the treaty and established principles applicable to land reservations created for the benefit of the Indian tribes, the Indians are beneficial owners of the land and the timber standing upon it and of the proceeds of their sale, subject to the plenary power of control by the United States, to be exercised for the benefit and protection of the Indians.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature