Summary

Stanley Matthews Choctaw Nation v. United States…

The senate decided that they were not entitled to the proceeds as a matter of right, but that, under all the circumstances, it would be fair and just to settle on that basis. Had the same power been granted to the court of claims, I should not hesitate to affirm a judgment to the full amount of the award, if placed on that ground. But, as has been seen, the jurisdictional statute confines the jurisdiction of the courts in this suit to a determination of the legal rights of the parties. Under the treaty the senate could do what was fair and just, but we can only adjudge according to law.
Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews Choctaw Nation v. United States…

The only further question, then, which can be claimed to be left open for adjudication in this suit by the terms of the act of March 3, 1881, is, on the supposition that the award is prima facie evidence of the correctness of the claim thereby reduced to judgment, whether upon its merits it was fair, just, and equitable, as a settlement between the parties of the matters in controversy, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. As already declared, it is the right of the United States to question its validity by questioning its justice.
Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews Choctaw Nation v. United States…

The United States is a sovereign nation, not suable in any court except by its own consent, and upon such terms and conditions as may accompany that consent, and is not subject to any municipal law. Its government is limited only by its own constitution, and the nation is subject to no law but the law of nations. On the other hand, the Choctaw Nation falls within the description, in the terms of our constitution, not of an independent state or sovereign nation, but of an Indian tribe. As such it stands in a peculiar relation to the United States.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature