Opinion of the Court. Chippewa, Ottawa, and Pottawatomie Indians,' nor by the receipt in full given by said Pottawatomies under the provi sions of said resolution, nor shall said receipt be evidence of any fact except of payment of the amount of money mentioned in it." Two suits were commenced in the Court of Claims, as heretofore stated, and by that court consolidated. In one a certain number of individuals were named as petitioners. In the other it was admitted that ninety-one persons were represented by their authorized attorney, as appeared by agreement between the attorney and their business committee. The court, after consolidating the two actions, proceeded to determine the amount due, and made no finding as to the individuals entitled to share in such amount. But such identification was for want of sufficient evidence to enable the court to determine the question. This is apparent from the opinion of that court in the present case, for it is said by Chief Justice Nott, in delivering that opinion," It is unfortunate for some of the claimants in the present suit that the evidence upon which they now rely was not before the court then. The court deemed itself bound by the action of the government in recognizing the parties represented by the former suit (that is, one of the two suits consolidated), and accordingly rendered judgment for them; but the court did not undertake to determine who the then existing individual claimants were who were entitled to participate in the distribution." Again, after quoting from the opinion of this court, he said: "At this point, if the former case had been a similar suit in chancery between ordinary litigants, it would have been referred to a master or referee to ascertain and report as to the individual claimants entitled to recover, and the final decree would not have been entered until a coming in and confirmation or correction of the master's report. The Secretary of the Interior, however, seems to have inferred from language in the opinions of the two courts that he was authorized to proceed and ascertain who those Indians were, and to prescribe the methods for so ascertaining and determining the amount to be distributed to each individual claimant." And after referring Opinion of the Court. to a plea in behalf of these individual claimants on account of their ignorance, added, "but the former case, in which the court might have exercised the discretion of a court of equity and allowed parties to come in even after the decree and assert their rights, is closed; the judgment therein has been satisfied; the claimants stand directly upon their legal rights, and there can not be one law for the intelligent and another for the ignorant." And this court, in its opinion, used the language quoted in the preliminary statement of fact. It is obvious from these quotations from the opinions that both the Court of Claims and this court understood that the act gave jurisdiction not only to ascertain the amount due, but also to identify the individuals entitled to share therein, and that the failure to find the latter resulted from a lack of evidence-a lack the plaintiffs endeavor in this action to supply. But even if the language of the prior opinions of the Court of Claims and this court can be tortured into a different construction, still there can be no question of the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims over the present action. The jurisdiction of a court is not exhausted by the mere entry of a judgment. It always has power to inquire whether that judgment has been executed, and the contention here is-and it is the basis of this suit that the judgment which was rendered in the prior suit has not been executed. It would be an anomaly to hold that a court having jurisdiction of a controversy and which renders a judgment in favor of A against B had no power to inquire whether that judgment has been rightly executed by a payment from B to C. If the Court of Claims had no authority to inquire into the execution of its judgment it was shorn of a part of the ordinary jurisdiction of a court. The question what is essential in order to confer jurisdiction in this court over the judgments of the Court of Claims was exhaustively examined by Chief Justice Taney in Gordon v. United States, reported in 117 U. S. 697, and that judgment has been more than once referred to by this court as conclusive of the questions therein considered. District of Columbia v. Eslin, 183 U. S. 62; District of Columbia v. Barnes, p. , post. In that opinion he said (p. 702) : Opinion of the Court. "The inferior court, therefore, from which the appeal is taken, must be a judicial tribunal authorized to render a judg ment which will bind the rights of the parties litigating before it, unless appealed from, and upon which the appropriate process of execution may be issued by the court to carry it into effect. And Congress cannot extend the appellate power of this court beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution, and can neither confer nor impose on it the authority or duty of hearing and determining an appeal from a commissioner or auditor, or any other tribunal exercising only special powers under an act of Congress; nor can Congress authorize or require this court to express an opinion on a case where its judicial power could not be exercised, and where its judg ment would not be final and conclusive upon the rights of the parties, and process of execution awarded to carry it into effect. "The award of execution is a part, and an essential part of every judgment passed by a court exercising judicial power. It is no judgment, in the legal sense of the term, without it. Without such an award the judgment would be inoperative and nugatory, leaving the aggrieved party without a remedy. It would be merely an opinion, which would remain a dead letter, and without any operation upon the rights of the parties, unless Congress should at some future time sanction it, and pass a law authorizing the court to carry its opinion into effect. Such is not the judicial power confided to this court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction: yet it is the whole power that the court is allowed to exercise under this act of Congress." It follows from these considerations that the Court of Claims not only had jurisdiction to find the amount due from the United States to the Pottawatomie Indians of Michigan and Indiana and render judgment therefor, but also to inquire into the question whether that judgment had been duly and properly executed. The judgment is Affirmed. JUSTICES WHITE and MCKENNA, dissenting. MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA, dissenting. It results from the findings of the court below that the petitioners in that court who are appellants, apart from the question of their laches, are entitled to the relief which they seek. This was conceded by the court below in the conclusion of law which it drew from the findings of fact, was not challenged by the government in the argument at bar, and is, besides, not now questioned by this court in its opinion. But the lower court held, and this court now affirms such conclusion, that because of their laches the petitioners are cut off from obtaining that judicial relief to which they would otherwise be entitled. In other words, it is decided that although the power exists in the court to grant relief, its duty is not to exert its lawful powers to that end because the petitioners have so neglected their rights that they are not entitled now to enforce them. From this conclusion I am constrained to dissent, because, in my opinion, there is no power in the court to entertain jurisdiction, and therefore no right in it to decide the question of laches. In other words, I think the plaintiffs in error must be relegated to Congress for relief, not because they have lost their right to redress in the courts by their neglect, but because the wrong which they have suffered is one which can only be remedied by Congress, the courts being without jurisdiction over the subject matter. Whilst both in the opinion of the court and in my view the plaintiffs in error can only obtain relief at the hands of Congress, there is a serious difference in the grounds upon which the conclusion proceeds, for manifestly it is one thing to refer the plaintiffs to Congress because they have lost their rights by neglect, and another to refer them to Congress because that body alone has power over the subject. Because of the difference between these views and the effect which this difference. may have on the rights of the parties when their claim for relief is presented to Congress, I deem it my duty to state quite fully the reasons for my dissent. The history of this controversy was stated in the opinion in Phineas Pam-to-pee v. United States, 148 U. S. 691. For the JUSTICES WHITE and MCKENNA, dissenting. purpose of present clearness, however, the salient facts are again recapitulated. On the 26th and 27th of September, 1833, by a treaty and articles supplementary thereto, the united nation of Chippewa, Ottawa and Pottawatomie Indians ceded certain lands in Michigan and Illinois to the United States, and agreed to remove within three years west of the Mississippi. 7 Stat. 431, 442. Among other payments to be made on account of the cessions, there was to be paid to the Indians under the treaty proper the sum of $280,000, and under the articles supplementary $40,000, in twenty annual installments of fourteen thousand dollars and two thousand dollars respectively. Appended to the articles supplementary was a provision wherein it was recited : "As since the signing of the treaty a part of the band residing on the reservations in the Territory of Michigan have requested, on account of their religious creed, permission to remove to the northern part of the peninsula of Michigan, it is agreed that in case of such removal the just proportion of all annuities payable to them under former treaties and that arising from the sale of the reservation on which they now reside shall be paid to them at l'Arbre Croche." 7 Stat. 445. Only a portion of the Indians embraced by the provision just quoted removed from their reservations to the northern part of Michigan. The others disbursed throughout Michigan and a few settled in Indiana. From the year 1843 to the year 1865, inclusive, payments were made to the Pottawatomie Indians who had not removed West, and who were deemed to be entitled to the annuity benefits stipulated in the articles supplementary signed on September 27, 1833. These payments were made at the Mackinac agency, and it would seem that the payments embraced Indians who had not removed to the northern part of Michigan, but who had located elsewhere in Michigan and Indiana. A schedule showing the dates of payments, the names of the agents who made them, and the number of Indians to whom the aggregate sums were paid, is annexed in VOL. CLXXXVII-25 |