Opinion of the Court

of the tribe to exercise its plenary administrative power over unallotted Indian lands and undistributed Indian funds. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, supra; Winton v. Amos, 255 U. S. 373; United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U. S. 110; United States v. Mille Lac Band of Chippewas, 229 U. S. 498; Kadrie case, supra.

In the case of Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 308, the Supreme Court held:

We are not concerned in this case with the question whether the act of June 28, 1898, and the proposed action thereunder, which is complained of, is or is not wise, and calculated to operate beneficially to the interests of the Cherokees. The power existing in Congress to administer upon and guard the tribal property, and the power being political and administrative in its nature, the manner of its exercise is a question within the province of the legislative branch to determine and is not one for the courts.

The established rule applies to the tribal funds of an Indian tribe or tribes whenever an existing Indian tribe challenges the administration of its estate under an act or acts of Congress.

The first claim of plaintiffs is for $232,011.21. Section 7 of the act of 1889 provided that the Government should advance to the Indians each year after the passage of the act the sum of $90,000, known as advance interest. These annual advancements were to continue until the permanent fund arising from the sale of surplus lands equalled or exceeded $3,000,000, less any actual interest accruing in the meantime.

The Government made annual appropriations of $90,000 in accord with the act for the fiscal years 1892 to 1911, inclusive, or a total sum of $1,890,000. On May 16, 1911, reimbursement was taken by the Government as follows: $896,246.93 from the permanent fund, and on later dates, $973,504.52 from the interest fund, or a total reimbursement of $1,869,751.45, resulting in a failure of the Government to obtain a full reimbursement of public money taken from the Treasury of $177.94.

Opinion of the Court

The plaintiffs insist that the Government in taking reimbursement for advanced interest payments took from the permanent fund $232,011.21 more than the act of 1889 authorized. No contention is advanced that all the money involved was disbursed in any other way than for the exclusive benefit of the Indian tribe, nor is it contended that reimbursement. for the sums appropriated by the Government was unauthorized, the only contention being that the permanent fund. under the act of 1889 was depleted to the extent noted, to the prejudice of the remaindermen.

The annual Indian appropriation bill for 1911 contained among other provisions the following:

For advance interest to the Chippewa Indians in Minnesota, as required by section seven, Act of January fourteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, entitled. "An Act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota," to be expended in the manner required by said Act, ninety thousand dollars: Provided, That the amount of this appropriation and all moneys heretofore or hereafter to be appropriated for this purpose shall be repaid into the Treasury of the United States in accordance with the provisions of the Act of January fourteenth, eighteen hundred and eightynine: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall transmit to Congress on the first Monday in December, nineteen hundred and ten, a statement, by tribes and funds, of all moneys appropriated by Congress since July first, eighteen hundred and seventy-five,. required by law to be reimbursed to the United States from Indian tribal funds held in trust or otherwise, showing the extent to which such reimbursements have been, or may now be accomplished [36 Stat. 276].

The wording of this portion of the appropriation act discloses that Congress in its conception of its obligations under the act of 1889 appropriated each year the $90,000 advance interest payment without respect to the interest fund accumulating upon the permanent fund from year to year. Obviously, if Congress had been aware of the extent of interest accumulations it could have omitted these advance appropriations at least eight years sooner.

While technically it may be asserted that Congress did not strictly observe the provisions of the act of 1889, it is indis

Opinion of the Court

putable that the present plaintiffs suffered absolutely no loss, and now seek to gain a benefit from a transaction which did them no harm whatever. The reason advanced by the Government is a weighty one. While advancements of interest were appropriated by the Government the sums advanced were not completely disbursed in any one fiscal year.

The bookkeeping system of the Treasury discloses two separate accounts-one known as payment into the permanent fund and the other into the interest fund-and in the addition of unexpended balances as well as the addition and subtraction of sums from the interest fund the Secretary of the Interior made the reimbursements as he construed the act of 1889 to authorize. In the multitude of entries in a large and continuing account over a long term of years the Government is not to be charged with an error that results in no loss or damage to any living Indian.

The act of 1889 provided that from the proceeds of the sale of the ceded lands the Government should be reimbursed for carrying out the act. The plaintiffs do not challenge the amount the Government appropriated and disbursed for this purpose. The present item in suit is a claim for $203.17, an alleged overreimbursement from the permanent fund.

In view of our judgment and opinion in this case, the defendant's defense to this item is invulnerable, and in no event was the reimbursement taken in excess of $25.23. There were a number of appropriations made by Congress for the benefit of the plaintiffs, in each of which it was expressly provided that the Government should be reimbursed therefor from the plaintiffs' funds. The act of 1889 contained certain provisions which obligated the Government to provide sufficient funds for administering the act, and for these sums the Government was to be reimbursed. Obviously, no additional legislation was required to authorize such reimbursements. The sums for which the Government took reimbursement, in addition to these, were appropriations made by Congress concerning the welfare and civilization of the tribe and providing that they should be reimbursed for the same.

The plaintiffs seek to limit this item to one expenditure for carrying out the act of 1889 and object to treating the

i

Opinion of the Court

reimbursable items as a whole. This position is untenable. Congress retained its plenary power and authority over Indian tribal lands and funds and provided that the sums appropriated were to be reimbursed from the Indian funds. See Finding 9.

The Government by appropriation acts appropriated $19,782.50 for an Indian school at Leech Lake, Minnesota; $30,453.79 for a drainage survey of ceded lands; $35,000 for an Indian school at Red Lake, Minnesota, and $17,974.54 for school buildings for the Chippewas of Minnesota. In each appropriation act it was expressly provided that the sums thus appropriated and disbursed should be reimbursed to the Government out of the funds involved in this case. To hold that the act of 1889 precluded the Government from taking ample Indian funds of a tribe for the above civilizing purpose is contrary to established precedents.

In the discussion of items which are to follow it is not essential to enter into the details of accounting. The findings point out the sums involved, and we have adverted to typical items illustrative of all involved. As previously stated, the plaintiffs' case rests upon a lack of Congressional authority to take from the funds created by the act of 1889 any sum not expressly stated to be reimbursable. If this is the principle of established law, manifestly the plaintiffs are entitled to recover.

Aside from reimbursable sums mentioned in the act of 1889, additional items in suit involve reimbursement of large sums appropriated by Congress and expended for welfare and civilization of the tribe, which were either not authorized by the act or exceeded the sums authorized. One item is education. The act of 1889 expressly authorized the expenditure of one-fourth of interest accumulations during the fifty-year period to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior for education. It is alleged and proved that more than one-fourth was expended, and subsequently the Government was reimbursed from the fund.

In the process of extending instrumentalities for obtaining an advancement of civilization, education becomes a

Opinion of the Court

leading and controlling factor. If Congress adopted the policy subsequent to 1889 of reimbursing appropriations made to Indian tribes for this purpose out of available Indian tribal funds, the courts may not intervene. The act of 1889 did not create a contract, and Congress did not by its enactment render the Government powerless to provide as in its wisdom it deemed appropriate for the education of the Indians. It retained control of unexpended tribal funds.

It is asserted that facilities for education inured to individual Indians and not to the tribe. It is unnecessary to combat the argument. The Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 87 C. Cls. 91. Agricultural implements, clothing for the needy, provisions and rations for the hungry, livestock, and food for their maintenance; fuel and light for Indian homes; hospitals for the sick; funds for the burial of the dead, as well as innumerable other items restricted exclusively to the status of an Indian tribe, may, when Congress so prescribes, be paid for out of Indian tribal funds, irrespective of the provisions of the act of 1889.

In 1911 Congress adopted the policy of defraying the expense of Indian agencies and other costs of governmental activities in Indian affairs, either in whole or in part, out of available Indian tribal funds. In this case Congress observed this policy and provided that sums expended for this purpose should be reimbursable. The plaintiffs contest the item by a contention predicated upon governmental policy obtaining in former years. We will not review the origin and purpose of Indian agencies; it is sufficient to state that Congress determines the Indian policy and we may not challenge it.

Because Congress appropriated as it did between the years 1890 and 1910 the sum of $2,350,559 for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota and directed that the Treasury should obtain reimbursement of this sum "out of the proceeds of sales of land ceded by the Chippewa Indians under the act of 1889, or out of the proceeds of the sale of their lands," it becomes incumbent upon the plaintiffs to establish a diversion of the funds to purposes other than the relief and civilization of the Indians.