Summary

Portrait of John Hessin Clarke John Hessin Clarke Ewert v. Bluejacket — Opinion of the Court

The substitution of 'employed in Indian affairs,' used in the section of the Revised Statutes, for 'employed in the Indian department,' used in the prior act, was plainly intended to enlarge the scope of the provision, so that it should include all persons employed in Indian affairs, even though they might not be on the roll of the Indian department, which is really only a bureau of the Interior Department.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Hessin Clarke John Hessin Clarke Ewert v. Bluejacket — Opinion of the Court

Since the Act of June 22, 1870 (16 Stat. 164, c. 150, carried into R. S. § 189 [Comp. St. § 271] ) , no head of any department of the government has been permitted to employ legal counsel at the expense of the United States; but, whenever such counsel is desired, a call must be made upon the Department of Justice, by which it is furnished.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Hessin Clarke John Hessin Clarke Ewert v. Bluejacket — Opinion of the Court

Having regard to the purpose of the statute, as we have stated it, we think that no such narrow interpretation can be given to the section. Congress cannot have intended to prohibit the use of official position and influence for the purpose of overreaching the Indians in the selling to them of clothing or groceries and to permit their use in stripping them of their homes and lands.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature