Supplemental Opinion of the Court We find nothing in the record to sustain a finding that the per capita payments here involved were made to the then beneficiaries of interest distributions. The acts authorizing the payments use the terms "permanent" and "principal fund." The sums distributed and the extent of the Indian enrollment negative the fact that the distribution and payments were limited to the interest fund. The variation in sums as to different years is attributable in part to the difference in the amount of per capita payments authorized by the acts. If the per capita payments were authorized by the act of 1889 and were intended only for beneficiaries of the interest distributions the Secretary of the Interior did not need special legislation to make such distributions. The act of 1889 conferred such authority. The special acts are susceptible to but one construction in our opinion, and that is Congress intended and clearly expressed such an intention to take from available funds in the Treasury to the credit of the Indians and distribute designated amounts to them per capita irrespective of the source from which the fund emanated. The taking of a receipt from each distributee was a precautionary measure adopted by the Secretary of the Interior in formulating his regulations. This procedure has, we think, nothing to do with the solution of the issues in this The Secretary was authorized to administer and pay out a large sum of money and the maintenance of strict regulations involving accounting was indispensable. As a matter of fact, the regulations promulgated by the Secretary were in no way unusual. case. Plaintiffs argue that notwithstanding per capita payments made to individual Indians who had died prior to June 30, 1927, and to others now living who may survive the trust period, the entire amount distributed under the special acts should be appropriated by Congress and restored to the so-called trust fund. As to the survivors, the defendant is fully protected by receipts, and as to decedents the payment was unauthorized. If the judgment of the court is erroneous and plaintiffs' contention hereafter sustained, the above argument will be Supplemental Opinion of the Court come important; it is now a stated principle of accounting, and may become important in fixing the sum to be appropriated if this court is wrong in its adjudication of the case. We have gone carefully into the record in considering the motions for a new trial, and we have added this opinion to the original one because the plaintiffs in the brief apparently feel that we neglected both in the findings and opinion to attach to the subject-matter of per capita payments the importance it deserves. On page 37 of the original opinion in the first line of the second paragraph the word "reimbursable" will be stricken out. (See page 41.) Plaintiffs' request for a new Finding 23 is denied. The subject-matter of the finding involves a statement of existing laws concerning the public school system of Minnesota, a matter of which the courts take judicial notice. The determinative issue in this case, deducible from the facts involved, depends as we see it upon the one important legal principle: If Congress in enacting the act of 1889 precluded a subsequent Congress from administering the act of 1889 in accord with the existing condition of tribal Indians, and by legislation diverted the fund established by prior legislation in the interest of those then in need of it, does legal precedent exact a reimbursement to the fund of the sums expended? If Congress is without authority to care for the immediate needs of tribal Indians, and yet does so, is a legal liability imposed upon the United States to appropriate again sufficient funds to carry into effect the provisions of an act which by its terms would leave an existing Indian population in what Congress has determined to be a condition of distress and necessity? What we hold is that Congress possesses the exclusive and plenary authority to deal with tribal Indian lands and funds as in its wisdom it deems just. It is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, and if the legislation does not impair vested rights or appropriate Indian property for a public purpose the courts are absolutely without jurisdiction. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553. The motions for a new trial are overruled and the motions to amend the findings are allowed in part and overruled in part. The former findings are withdrawn, and Appendix amended findings this day filed, the judgment and former opinion to stand. It is so ordered. WHALEY, Judge, LITTLETON, Judge; and GREEN, Judge, concur. WILLIAMS, Judge, took no part in this decision. APPENDIX The act of May 18, 1916, 39 Stat. 123, 135, provides in part as follows: That the Secretary of the Interior, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, is hereby authorized to advance to any individual Chippewa Indian in the State of Minnesota entitled to participate in the permanent fund of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota one-fourth of the amount which would now be coming to said Indian under a pro rata distribution of said permanent fund: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, may use for or advance to any Chippewa Indian in the State of Minnesota entitled to share in said fund who is incompetent, blind, crippled, decrepit, or helpless from old age, disease, or accident, one-fourth of the amount which would now be coming to said Indian under a pro rata distribution of said permanent fund: Provided further, That any money received hereunder by any member of said tribe or used for his or her benefit shall be deducted from the share of said member in the permanent fund of the said Chippewa Indians in Minnesota to which he or she would be entitled: Provided further, That the funds hereunder to be paid to Indians shall not be subject to any lien or claim of attorneys or other third parties. The act of November 19, 1921, 42 Stat. 221, provides as follows: That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized to withdraw from the Treasury of the United States so much as may be necessary of the principal fund on deposit to the credit of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, arising under section 7 of the act of January 14, 1889 (Twenty-fifth Statutes at Large, page 642), entitled "An Act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Appendix Minnesota," and to make therefrom a per capita payment, or distribution, of $100 to each enrolled member of the tribe, under such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may prescribe: Provided, That the money paid to the Indians as authorized herein shall not be subject to any lien or claim of attorneys or other parties: Provided, That before any payment is made hereunder the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota shall, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, ratify the provisions of this act and accept the same. The act of January 25, 1924, 43 Stat. 1, provides as follows: That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized to withdraw from the Treasury of the United States so much as may be necessary of the principal fund on deposit to the credit of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, arising under section 7 of the Act of January 14, 1889 (Twenty-fifth Statutes at Large, 642), entitled "An Act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota," and to make therefrom a per capita payment or distribution of $100 to each enrolled member of the tribe, under such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may prescribe: Provided, That before any payment is made hereunder the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota shall, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, ratify the provisions of this Act and accept same: Provided further, That the money paid to the Indians as authorized herein shall not be subject to any lien or claim of attorneys or other parties. The act of January 30, 1925, 43 Stat. 798, provides as follows: That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized to withdraw from the Treasury of the United States so much as may be necessary of the principal fund on deposit to the credit of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, arising under section 7 of the Act of January 14, 1889 (Twenty-fifth Statutes at Large, 642), entitled "An Act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota," and to make therefrom a per capita payment or distribution of $50 to each enrolled member of the tribe, under such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may prescribe: Provided, That before any Reporter's Statement of the Case payment is made hereunder the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota shall, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, ratify the provisions of this Act and accept same: Provided further, That the money paid to the Indians as authorized herein shall not be subject to any lien or claim of attorneys or other parties. The act of February 19, 1926, 44 Stat. 7, provides as follows: That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized to withdraw from the Treasury of the United States so much as may be necessary of the principal fund on deposit to the credit of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, arising under section 7 of the Act of January 14, 1889 (Twenty-fifth Statutes at Large, 642), entitled, "An Act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota," and to make therefrom a per capita payment or distribution of $50 to each enrolled member of the tribe, under such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may prescribe: Provided, That before any payment is made hereunder the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota shall, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, ratify the provisions of this Act and accept same: Provided further, That the money paid to the Indians as authorized herein shall not be subject to any lien or claim of attorneys or other parties. MOHAWK RUBBER COMPANY v. THE [No. 43409. Decided November 14, 1938. Plaintiff's motion for new trial overruled February 6, 1939] On the Proofs Income tax; claim for refund.-Where taxpayer on December 12, 1931, filed claim for refund of the entire amount of income tax for 1928, which amount was paid in four installments-March 20, June 17, September 16, and December 16, 1929-it is held that under Section 322 of the Revenue Act of 1928, the claim for refund was properly held by the Commissioner to have been timely filed, within the two-year period, only as to the last installment. |