
    SISSETON AND WAHPETON BANDS OF INDIANS v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [42 C. Cls. R., 416; 208 U. S. R., 561.]
    
      On both parties Appeals.
    
    The claimant Indians take part in the Sioux outbreak of 1882. Congress immediately pass an act whereby the annuities assured to the Indians by the treaty of 1851 are declared forfeited and are appropriated for the relief of the white sufferers. Subsequently Congress recognize the fact that all these Indians were not engaged in the outbreak and that some of them assisted in suppressing it. Congress accordingly appropriate money for members of the bands to compensate them for their assistance. In 1858, and subsequently, treaties are made by which the Indians cede lands and the United States assume obligations. Finally, in 1006, Congress virtually restore the forfeited annuities to the Indians by authorizing this court to proceed “ as if the act of forfeiture of the annuities had not been passed,” and directing the court “ to ascertain and set off against the amount found to he due to said Indians, if any, all payments ” “ which are properly chargeable against said unpaid annuities.” The principal question involved in the case is, What are the items properly chargeable against the unpaid annuities?
    The court below decides:
    I. It is the intention of the jurisdictional act, Act 21st June, 1906 (34 Stat. L., p. 3T2), that the court shall examine “ all payments or other provisions of every name and nature ” made to the Indians since the treaty of 1851 (10 Stat. L., p. 049), and from the nature of the same and the circumstances under which they were made determine whether they are properly chargeable against the unpaid annuities granted by this treaty.
    
      XI. Tlie money of the Indians expended for the relief of the white sufferers under Act 16th February, 1S6S (12 Stat. L., p. 652), is a proper charge against the unpaid annuities.
    III. Where the evidence does not show how much of a gross sum went to each band of Indians, one-half of the gross amount should be charged to each.
    IV. Moneys appropriated since 1883 for the support of these Indians, being in the stead of the annuities, should be deemed charged against the fund.
    V.Money expended in removing the Indians to new homes is not a proper charge against the unpaid annuities.
    VI.Moneys paid under a treaty “ in consideration of the destitution of said bonds,” “ resulting from the confiscation of their annuities and improvements ” are a proper charge.
    VII.Money paid to the Indians which was in legal effect the proceeds derived from a sale of their lands is not properly chargeable.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed with slight modification as to Item I.
   Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 24, 1908.  