Summary

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Lane v. Morrison — Opinion of the Court

It seems clear that 'civilization and self-support' among the Indians cannot be promoted effectively by disconnected efforts, but must be accomplished, if at all, by definite, permanent plans operating through many years. And in view of the long-continued practice of Congress to provide funds for such continuous efforts by annual appropriations, the circumstances under which the Joint Resolution became law, and the studied incorporation therein of the language of former appropriation acts, we think the purpose was to authorize expenditure of $160,000 during 1916, as had been done for 1915.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Lane v. Morrison — Opinion of the Court

The only point presented for decision is whether by the language used Congress has sufficiently indicated an intent to appropriate the money in question. The bill does not challenge its power.
Under an act approved January 14, 1889 (25 Stat. 642, c. 24) , lands in Minnesota occupied by Chippewa Indians were disposed of and proceeds deposited to their credit in the United States treasury, it being agreed that the fund should bear 5 per cent.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature