Summary

Louis Brandeis Morrison v. Work — Opinion of the Court

If through officials of the United States these lands, or the proceeds thereof, or the accruing interest, are improperly disposed of, it is the United States, not the officials, which is under obligation to account to the Indians therefor. In other words, the right of the Indians is merely to have the United States administer properly the trust assumed. It resembles the general right of every citizen to have the government administered according to law and the public moneys properly applied.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Morrison v. Work — Opinion of the Court

It issues to remedy a wrong, not to promote one. No facts are shown which justify its issue in this case. It is alleged that the Secretary of the Interior has 'refused and still refuses to allot a single Indian on the Red Lake reservation lands, or to permit any Indian to select or receive an allotment thereon.' If any Indian who is entitled to an allotment has vainly requested that it be made to him, it is not necessary to seek redress indirectly by this proceeding.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Morrison v. Work — Opinion of the Court

Under the Act of February 6, 1901, c. 217, 31 Stat. 760 (Comp. St. §§ 4214, 4215) , any Indian who claims to be entitled to an allotment under any act of Congress, may bring suit therefor against the United States in the appropriate district court. [13] Moreover, the course pursued by the Secretary of the Interior has been long acquiesced in by the Red Lake Indians and for aught that appears it is in accord with the desires and interest not only of that band, but also of all the other Chippewas in Minnesota except the plaintiff.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature