Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. United States v. Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians…

The amount of the unpaid annuities is not in dispute, but the questions raised by the appeals concern the items of set-off, and involve the principle upon which they are to be charged. The Indians contend that only sums specially charged by Congress against annuities come into the account, while the United States goes to the opposite extreme. We agree with the court of claims that the contention of the Indians, at least, must be rejected, for the reason stated by it, that if it was correct Congress did not need the help of the court
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. United States v. Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians…

On general grounds of fairness such payments are properly chargeable against the sum that the United States, by its condonation, consented to pay. Congress, as well as the court, is of that opinion, for the appropriation of the annuities to the indemnification of persons whose property had been destroyed by the Indians was declared just, and two thirds of the sums payable then and the next year were applied to that end by the forfeiture act of February 16, 1863.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. United States v. Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians…

It is agrued that the Indians already owned the land set aside for them, that there was no consideration for their grant except the promise in article 6, that the destitution of the Indians was not a consideration to the United States, and hence again that the promise should be set against the cession, and that they ought not to be charged with this sum.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature