INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES

Vol. III, Laws     (Compiled to December 1, 1913)

Compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. Washington : Government Printing Office, 1913.


Home | Disclaimer & Usage | Table of Contents | Index

PART VI.—Title “Indians” from Cyc (reprinted with new cases)

“Indians”
      Cross References
      I. Definition.
      II. Status and Disabilities
      III. Indian Lands.
      IV. Government of Indians and Indian Country.
      V. Indian Depredations.

Notes From New Cases

Page Images


{Page 738}

IV. GOVERNMENT of INDIANS and INDIAN COUNTRY.

A. Indian country defined.—Many statutory regulations regarding Indians are applicable only in the “Indian country,” and considerable difficulty has been experienced

{Page 739}

by the courts in defining and applying that term. It was defined by an early act of Congress,1 but that definition was omitted from the United States Revised Statutes.2 It has been held, however, that the omitted section may be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of the term.3 It now applies to all the country to which the Indian title has not been extinguished, within the limits of the United States, even when not within a reservation expressly set apart for the exclusive occupancy of Indians,4 excluding, however, [140] any territory embraced within the exterior geographical limits of a State, not excepted from its jurisdiction by treaty or by statute, at the time of its admission into the Union, but saving, even in respect to territory not thus excepted and actually in the exclusive occupancy of Indians, the authority of Congress over it, under the constitutional power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and under any treaty made in pursuance of it.5 It of course includes reservations set apart for Indian tribes by treaty, executive order, or act of Congress.6


      1“All that part of the United States west of the Mississippi, and not within the States of Missouri and Louisiana, or the Territory of Arkansas, and also that part of the United States east of the Mississippi River, and not within any State to which the Indian title has not been extinguished,” was declared to be Indian country. 4 U. S. Stat. L., 729.
      2U. S. v. Le Bris, 121 U. S., 278; 7 S. Ct., 894; 30 L. Ed. 946; Ex p. Kan-gi-shun-ca, 109 U. S., 556; 3 S. Ct., 396; 27 L. Ed. 1030; Palcher v. U. S., 11 Fed., 47; 3 McCrary, 510.
      3U. S. v. Le Bris, 121 U. S., 278; 7 S. Ct., 894; 30 L. Ed. 946; Exp. Kan-gi-shun-ca, 109 U. S., 556; 3 S. Ct., 396; 27 L. Ed. 1030.
      4Ex p. Kan-gi-shun-ca, 109 U. S., 556; 3 S. Ct., 396; 27 L. Ed. 1030; Bates v. Clark, 95 U. S., 204; 24 L. Ed. 471; U. S. v. Seveloff, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16252; 2 Sawy., 311. And see In re Forty-three Cases Cognac Brandy, 14 Fed., 539; 4 McCrary, 616. Compare U. S. v. Four Bottles Sour-Mash Whisky, 90 Fed., 720; U. S. v. Forty-eight Pounds Rising Star Tea, 38 Fed., 400 [affirming 35 Fed., 403].
      Country inhabited or occupied by Indians: “An Indian country is a portion of territory subject to an Indian title, inhabited by Indians. A mere solitude, or a country without Indians, could hardly be considered an Indian country, even if their title which is merely possessory, could survive the absolute absence of its beneficiaries.” U. S. v. Certain Property, 1 Ariz., 31, 39, 25 Pac., 517. “Indian country” is the term used to designate the “territory occupied and set apart for Indian tribes, and owned exclusively by them, and wholly within the exclusive jurisdiction of congress.” U. S. v. Cohn, 2 Ind. T., 474, 491; 52 S. W., 38.
      Land ceases to be Indian country as soon as the Indians part with their title, without any further action by Congress. U. S. v. Certain Property, 1 Ariz., 31; 25 Pac., 517; Clark v. Bates, 1 Dak., 42; 46 N. W., 510; U. S. v. Payne, 8 Fed., 883; 2 McCrary, 289.
      School lands sold by a State to which they were granted by act of Congress, and in possession of the State’s grantee, are not within the definition, although within the exterior limits of an Indian reservation. U. S. v. Thomas, 47 Fed., 488.
      In the territory derived from Mexico there was no Indian title to be extinguished; hence no Indian country except that set apart for reservations. Hayt v. U. S., 38 C. Cls., 455.
      5Ex p. Kan-gi-shun-ca, 109 U. S., 556; 3 S. Ct., 396; 27 L. Ed., 1030; Langford v. Monteith, 102 U. S., 145; 26 L. Ed., 53.
      Particular States and Territories: Colorado (U. S. v. McBratney, 104 U. S., 621; 26 L. Ed., 869), Kansas (McCracken v. Todd, 1 Kans., 148; U. S. v. Ward, 28 Fed. Cas., No. 16639; Woolw., 17), Louisiana (State v. Chiqui, 49 La. Ann., 131; 21 So., 513), Nevada, New Mexico, Utah (U. S. v. Leathers, 26 Fed. Cas., No. 15581; 6 Sawy., 17; Hayt v. U. S., 38 C. Cls., 455; Pino v. U. S., 38 C. Cls., 64), and Oregon (U. S. v. Tom, 1 Oreg., 26), are not Indian country; but Montana Territory (U. S. v. 196 Buffalo Robes, 1 Mont., 489; U. S. v. Partello, 48 Fed., 670) and Washington Territory (Fowler v. U. S., 1 Wash. T., 3) were Indian country before their admission into the Union. The act of Congress extending to Alaska a part of the statute known as the “Indian Intercourse Laws” and relating principally to the introduction of the liquor traffic among the Indians, is to be construed to make this Territory Indian country only to the extent of the prohibited commerce (In re Sah Quah, 31 Fed., 327; Kie v. U. S., 27 Fed., 351; U. S. v. Kie, 26 Fed. Cas., No. 15528a; U. S. v. Seveloff, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16252; 2 Sawy., 311; Waters v. Campbell, 29 Fed. Cas., No. 17264; 4 Sawy., 121.
      6Dakota: U. S. v. Knowlton, 3 Dak., 58; 13 N. W., 573.
      Minnesota: U. S. v. Shanks, 15 Minn., 369.
      New Mexico: U. S. v. Monte, 3 N. Mex., 126; 3 Pac., 45.
      Oklahoma: In re Ingram, 12 Okla., 54; 69 Pac., 868.
      United States: U. S. v. Le Bris, 121 U. S., 278; 7 S. Ct., 894; 30 L. Ed., 946; U. S. v. Lariviere, 93 U. S., 188; 23 L. Ed., 846; Eells v. Ross, 64 Fed., 417; 12 C. C. A., 205; Benson v. U. S., 44 Fed., 178; U. S. v. Barnhart, 22 Fed., 285; 10 Sawy., 491; U. S. v. Martin, 14 Fed., 817; 8 Sawy., 473; U. S. v. Bridleman, 7 Fed., 894; 7 Sawy., 243; U. S. v. Berry, 4 Fed., 779; 2 McCrary, 58; U. S. v. Leathers, 26 Fed. Cas., No. 15581; 6 Sawy., 17. And see Gibson v. Anderson, 131 Fed., 39; 65 C. C. A., 277; U. S. v. Payne, 8 Fed., 883. Compare Truscott v. Hurlbut Land, etc., Co., 73 Fed., 60; 19 C. C. A., 374.
      An Indian reservation is a part of the public domain set apart by a proper authority for the use and occupation of a tribe or tribes of Indians. It may be set apart by an act of Congress, by treaty, or by executive order; but it seems that a reservation can not be established by custom or prescription. The fact that a particular tribe or band of Indians has for a long time occupied a particular tract of country does not constitute such tract an Indian reservation. Forty-three Cases of Cognac Brandy, 14 Fed., 539; 4 McCrary, 616.

B. Regulation of intercourse with Indians1. Authority over reservations and trade with Indians(a) In general.—Under the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes7 Congress may prohibit all intercourse with them except under license,8 and may extend over them all laws within the constitutional limits of municipal legislation.9 This power is not limited by State [141] lines or governments, but may be exercised wherever Indian tribes exist.10 Such power and duty does not cease when the Indians become citizens of the United States,11 when they become electors under State laws,12 or when their lands are allotted in severalty.13


      7See Commerce, 7 Cyc., 411.
      8Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. (U. S.), 515; 8 L. Ed., 483; U. S. v. Cisna, 25 Fed. Cas., No. 14795; 1 McLean, 254.
      A license to trade with the Indians is a personal privilege and can not be transferred. U. S. v. 196 Buffalo Robes, 1 Mont., 489.
      A sale of such license is void and does not constitute a valuable consideration for a note. Hobbie v. Zaepffel, 17 Nebr., 536: 23 N. W., 514.
      A licensed trader may take a partner, and both may sell goods under the license. Dunn v. Carter, 30 Kans., 294; 1 Pac., 66.
      9U. S. v. Tobacco Factory, 28 Fed. Cas., No. 16528; 1 Dill., 264 [affirmed in 11 Wall., 616; 20 L. Ed., 227].
      The President may make such regulations as he may think fit for carrying into effect the provisions of any statute relating to Indian affairs. Adams v. Freeman (Okla., 1897), 50 Pac., 135.
      10Adams v. Freeman (Okla., 1897), 50 Pac., 135; U. S. v. Lariviere, 93 U. S., 188; 23 L. Ed., 846; U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. (U. S.), 407; 18 L. Ed., 182; U. S. v. Boyd, 83 Fed., 547; 27 C. C. A., 592; U. S. v. Barnhart, 22 Fed., 285; 10 Sawy., 491; U. S. v. Bridleman, 7 Fed., 894; 7 Sawy., 243; U. S. v. Cisna, 25 Fed. Cas., No. 14795; 1 McLean, 254.
      11U. S. v. Mullin, 71 Fed., 682.
      12U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. (U. S.), 407; 18 L. Ed., 182.
      13U. S. v. Flournoy Live-Stock, etc., Co., 71 Fed., 576.
      Not dependent upon title to land: The right of control in the general Government arises from its relation to all tribal Indians, as such, and does not depend on the title to the land upon which they reside. Peters v. Malin, 111 Fed., 244.

{Page 740}

(b) Power of State government.—A State or Territory has the power to incorporate Indian lands into political divisions;1 and, where such lands are not expressly reserved from the jurisdiction of the State, may extend its laws over persons therein not belonging to an Indian tribe.2


      1Stevens v. Thatcher, 91 Me., 70; 39 Atl., 282.
      Polling places: The State of Nebraska has jurisdiction over the Omaha and Winnebago Indian Reservations for the purpose of establishing polling places therein. State v. Norris, 37 Nebr., 299; 55 N. W., 1086.
      2Webster v. Reid, Morr. (Iowa), 467; Millar v. State, 2 Kans., 174; Bishop v. Barton, 2 Hun (N. Y.), 436; 5 Thomps. & C., 6; Gay v. Thomas, 5 Okla., 1; 46 Pac., 578.

2. Removal of trespassers3(a) In general.—The Secretary of the Interior acting through Indian agents has authority to remove all persons found on an Indian reservation contrary to law,4 even where the lands have been allotted in severalty;5 and his action in so doing can not be reviewed by the courts.6 The [142] Government may invoke the aid of the courts to effect such removals and to enjoin further violations of the law.7


     3Canada statute as to trespassers see McLean v. McIsaac, 6 Can. L. T., 453; 18 Nova Scotia, 304; Vanvleck v. Stewart, 19 U. C. Q. B., 489; Little v. Keating, 6 U. C. Q. B. O. S., 265.
      Summary removal under New York statute see People v. Dibble, 16 N. Y., 203 [affirming 18 Barb., 412]; People v. Soper, 7 N. Y., 428.
      4Ex p. Carter (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 102; George v. Greenwood, 11 La. Ann., 299; Eells v. Ross, 64 Fed., 417; 12 C. C. A., 205; U. S. v. Crook, 25 Fed. Cas., No. 14891; 5 Dill., 453; U. S. v. Sturgeon, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16413; 6 Sawy., 29.
      The right to exclude white men from the Creek Nation was not affected by the act of Congress authorizing the creation of cities and towns. Maxey v. Wright, 3 Ind. T., 243; 54 S. W., 807.
      A trespasser claiming possession under a void lease of lands belonging to a minor, the lease having been made without an order of the court, may be removed from the Indian Territory. Indian Land, etc., Co. v. Shoenfelt (Ind. T., 1904), 79 S. W., 134.
      A licensed trader who had sold out his business and abandoned his post and was avoiding his creditors was properly ousted from the agency with his property. Echols v. Tate, 53 Ark., 12; 13 S. W., 253.
      Property may be removed, where removal of the owner will not abate the nuisance; as in the case of grazing cattle, which might be controlled by agents who are members of the tribe or otherwise entitled to remain in the Indian country. Morris v. Hitchcock, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.), 565 [affirmed in 194 U. S., 384; 24 S. Ct., 712; 48 L. Ed., 1030].
      An agent has no authority to pass on the validity of a lease and order one in possession to be evicted from the land without his removal from the Indian country. Stephens v. Quigley, 126 Fed., 148; 61 C. C. A., 214 [affirming 3 Ind. T., 265; 54 S. W., 814]; La Chapelle v. Bubb, 62 Fed., 545.
      Damages for removal see Schewson v. U. S., 31 C. Cls., 192.
      Penalty for returning after removal: Any person removed from the Indian country who thereafter returns to it it is liable to a penalty of $1,000. U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878) sec. 2148. And see U. S. v. Baker (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 103. According to some of the decisions this penalty is enforceable by indictment as well as by a civil action. U. S. v. Stocking. 87 Fed., 857; U. S. v. Howard, 17 Fed., 638; 9 Sawy., 155; U. S. v. Sturgeon, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16413; 6 Sawy., 29. Contra, U. S. v. Baker (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 103; In re Seagraves, 4 Okla., 422; 48 Pac., 272; U. S. v. Payne, 22 Fed., 426.
      In an action to recover the penalty it must be shown that the settlement was unlawful or wrongful, and that thel and belonged to the Indians by a treaty with the United States. U. S. v. Lucero, 1 N. Mex., 422.
      5 U. S. v. Mullin, 71 Fed., 682.
      6Echols v. Tate, 53 Ark., 12; 13 S. W., 253; Zevely v. Weimer (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 941; Adams v. Freeman (Okla., 1897), 50 Pac., 135; Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. (U. S.), 19; 6 L. Ed., 537.
      7U. S. v. Flournoy Live-Stock, etc., Co., 71 Fed., 576.

(b) To enforce collection of a tax.—The remedy for nonpayment of a tax imposed by an Indian nation is the removal of the offender or his property from the tribal limits by the Secretary of the Interior;8 and where a person is not subject to removal, the Secretary may, through the agent or a tax collector of the Indian nation, close the place of business of such persons.9


      8Morris v. Hitchcock, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.), 565 [affirmed in 194 U. S., 384; 24 S. Ct., 712; 48 L. Ed., 1030; Maxey v. Wright, 3 Ind. T., 243; 54 S. W., 807.
      In the Indian Territory such power was taken away, as to persons in the lawful possession of a lot of land in a town or city, by 32 U. S. Stat. L., 245. Buster v. Wright (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 882.
      9Buster v. Wright (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 855 [affirmed in 135 Fed., 947].

(c) Grazing cattle.—Driving or otherwise conveying horses, mules, or cattle,10 to range and feed on land belonging to any Indian or Indian tribe, without the consent of the tribe, is forbidden by statute, under a penalty of $1 for each animal,11 and the Secretary of the Interior is empowered to remove such intruders and their property by force.12


      10 U. S. v. Mattock, 26 Fed. Cas., No. 15744; 2 Sawy., 148, including sheep.
      11U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878) see. 2117. And see Forsythe v. U. S., 3 Ind. T., 599; 64 S. W., 548; U. S. v. Loving, 34 Fed., 715.
      Who may bring action: An action to enforce the penalty may be brought by any member of the tribe (Forsythe v. U. S., 3 Ind. T., 599; 64 S. W., 548), the United States not being a necessary party (Forsythe v. U. S., 3 Ind. T., 599; 64 S. W., 548).
      Consent of Indians: An occupation of Indian lands for grazing purposes only, with the consent of the Indians and in recognition of their title is not forbidden. U. S. v. Hunter, 4 Mackey (D. C.), 531.
      It is lawful to drive cattle into the Indian country for delivery to an Indian under a contract to purchase. Morris v. Cohn, 55 Ark., 401; 17 S. W., 342; 18 S. W., 384.
      12Morris v. Hitchcock, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.), 565 [affirmed in 194 U. S., 384; 24 S. Ct., 712; 48 L. Ed., 1030].

3. Right to hunt and fish.—Where Indians are by treaty given the right to hunt and fish on their reservation, the State game laws do not apply to them;13 but where the reservation has been included within the limits of a State formed since the treaty, without reserving the rights of the Indians, such laws may be enforced.14


      13State v. Cooney, 77 Minn., 518; 80 N. W., 696; In re Lincoln, 129 Fed., 247; In re Blackbird, 109 Fed., 139; U. S. v. Winans, 73 Fed., 72. And see In re Race Horse. 70 Fed., 598.
      Bering sea fisheries: The treaty with the Makah Indians secures to the Indians only an equality of rights with citizens of the United States, and they are not specially privileged to catch fur seal in Bering sea. U. S. v. The James G. Swan, 50 Fed., 108.
      The treaty with the Yakima Indians secures to them the right to all the fisheries they had theretofore enjoyed: and a settler upon land abutting upon such a fishery takes subject to the rights of the Indians. U. S. v. Taylor, 3 Wash. T., 88; 13 Pac., 333.
      14Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U. S., 504; 16 S. Ct., 1076; 41 L. Ed., 244. And see State v. Newell, 84 Me., 465; 24 Atl., 943; People v. Pierce, 18 Misc. (N. Y.), 83; 41 N. Y. Suppl., 858; 11 N. Y. Cr., 325; U. S. v. Alaska Packers’ Assoc.,79 Fed., 152.

{Page 741}

4. Personal property.—Personal property owned by Indians in the Indian Territory can be reached by a creditor’s suit.1 In a controversy respecting such property the law of the nation will prevail, and where that is not pleaded or proven, the law of the forum.2 Where personal property is vested in the tribe, a transfer by an individual Indian is invalid.3 In Canada the movable property and effects of Indians on their reservations are exempt from seizure.4


      1 Daugherty v. Bogy, 3 Ind T., 197; 53 S. W., 542.
      2 Davison v. Gibson, 56 Fed., 443; 5 C. C. A., 543. And see Pyeatt v. Powell, 51 Fed., 551; 2 C. C. A., 367.
      3 Seneca Nation v. Hammond, 3 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.), 347.
      4 Bussières v. Bastien, 17 Quebec Super. Ct., 189.

C. Officers of Indian Affairs51. In general.—The action of the Commissioner [143] of Indian Affairs is presumed to be the action of the President,6 and where the commissioner ratifies and approves the action of an agent, either before or after it takes effect, his acts are valid and binding on the Government.7 But the Government may repudiate the agent’s action on the ground of fraud.8


      5 Indian superintendencies were not abolished by the mere force of 17 U. S. Stat. L., 463, which took effect only by the action of the President; and the payment of a superintendent’s salary to a certain date is prima facie evidence that his office was not abolished until that time. U. S. v. Wirt, 28 Fed. Cas., No. 16745; 3 Sawy., 161.
      Payment for supplies: A subagent has no legal authority to draw bills of exchange for supplies. Fremont v. U. S., 2 C. Cls., 461.
      Liability for acts of Indians: An Indian superintendent is not personally liable for torts of Indians unless he has directed or sanctioned their acts. Huebschman v. Baker, 7 Wis., 542.
      Agent for sale of lands: An agent for disposing of Indian lands on the Grand River in Canada does not come under the designation of a district agent of the Commissioner of Crown lands, so as to entitle purchasers holding his certificate to the benefit of the provisions in the land-sale acts. Young v. Scobie, 10 U. C. Q. B., 372.
      Order of agent: The written order of an Indian agent acting under instructions from the Interior Department is a legal writ or process within the meaning of U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 5398 [U. S. Comp. Stat. (1901), p. 3655]; and a member of the Indian police, although not an officer of the United States, is among the “other persons” who may be authorized under that statute to serve such writ. U. S. v. Mullin, 71 Fed., 682.
      New York Land Commissioners: The concurrence of the governor is necessary to the validity of a measure initiated by the Commissioners of the Land Office under N. Y. Laws (1839), c. 58, and N. Y. Laws (1841), c. 234. People v. Land Office Com’rs, 99 N. Y., 648; 1 N. E., 764.
      In Canada an Indian agent, or a superintendent and commissioner of Indian affairs, is ex officio a justice of the peace. Reg. v. Pah-eah-pah-ne-cappi, 17 Can. L. T., 306; Hunter v. Gilkison, 7 Ont., 735.
      6 Belt’s Case, 15 C. Cls., 92.
      7 U. S. v. Patrick, 73 Fed., 800; 20 C. C. A., 11; McClure v. U. S., 19 C. Cls., 173; Belt v. U. S., 15 C. Cls., 92.
      8 Raymond v. Shawboose, 34 Mich., 142.
     

2. Compensation and expenses.—The compensation of an Indian agent commences when he actually begins work for the Government.9 He is entitled to an allowance in addition to his fixed salary for such services or expenditures as are authorized by the general usage of the department.10 A statute fixing his salary is modified by subsequent appropriation acts setting apart a less sum.11


      9 U. S. v. Roberts, 10 Fed., 540.
      An Indian agent appointed during a recess of the Senate, and not confirmed at the next session, could not claim compensation for his services subsequent to the adjournment. Romero v. U. S., 24 C. Cls., 331.
      10 U. S. v. Duval, 25 Fed. Cas., No. 15015; Gilp., 356.
      Traveling expenses of agents required to travel include board while actually in transit, but do not include board while engaged in inspecting stations. U. S. v. Smith, 35 Fed., 490.
      Expenditures for benefit of Indians: The United States is not chargeable with expenditures made by an agent for the benefit of the Indians on land reserved and held by them. U. S. v. Duval, 25 Fed. Cas., No. 15015; Gilp., 356.
      A military officer acting as Indian agent was not entitled under 4 U. S. Stat. L., 729, to a commission on the amount of money disbursed by him in such capacity. Minis v. U. S., 15 Pet. (U. S.), 423; 10 L. Ed., 791.
      Authority to incur expense: Where the statute requires an expenditure by an Indian agent to be authorized by the Secretary of the Interior, an authorization by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs is sufficient. U. S. v. Odeneal, 10 Fed., 616; 7 Sawy., 451.
      11 Belknap v. U. S., 150 U. S., 150 U. S., 588; 14 S. Ct., 183; 37 L. Ed., 1191 [affirming 24 C. Cls., 433]; Smith v. U. S., 37 C. Cls., 119. And see Dyer v. U. S., 20 C. Cls., 166.

3. Official bonds.12—A bond may be required of an Indian agent in a larger sum than that specified by statute, by order of the Executive.13 The sureties on his bond are liable for money received by the agent, either for the United States or for the Indians under his charge, and misappropriated by him;14 and for unauthorized disbursements by him,15 except where such disbursements have


      12 See, generally, Officers.
      13 U. S. v. Humanson, 26 Fed. Cas., No. 15420; 5 Sawy., 537.
      14 U. S. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 121 Fed., 766; 58 C. C. A., 42. And see U. S. v. Allen, 36 Fed., 174: U. S. v. Smith. 35 Fed., 490.
      Liability for money on hand: Sureties on a bond given on the renewal of an appointment are liable for money received during the first term and remaining unexpended at the time of the second appointment. Bruce v. U. S., 17 How. (U. S.), 437 15 L. Ed., 129.
      A bond given by one as agent for certain Indians does not apply to money received by him while acting as agent for other Indians under orders from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. U. S. v. Barnhart, 17 Fed., 579; 9 Sawy., 159.
      The mere failure to file a receipt with his accounts for money actually disbursed by an agent for the benefit of the Government is not enough to charge his bondsmen. U. S. v. McClane, 74 Fed., 153.
      15 U. S. v. Sinnott, 26 Fed., 84.
      Where an agent paid the bills of a physician at the agency, under the sanction of a custom of the department of many years’ standing, he was entitled to credit in his accounts. U. S. v. Patrick, 73 Fed., 800; 20 C. C. A., 11.
      Advertising for bids for supplies by a superintendent, under a general order addressed to a predecessor in office, is a lawful expenditure of public money. U. S. v. Odeneal, 10 Fed., 616; 7 Sawy., 451.
      An agent paying freight on goods required by reason of a sudden emergency is entitled to be reimbursed. U. S. v. Stowe, 19 Fed., 807.
      Payment for similar purchases: The obligation of the Government to pay for purchases made by an Indian agent may be inferred from the action of Congress subsequently providing payment for similar purchases. Fremont v. U. S., 2 C. Cls., 461.

{Page 742}

[144] been made in good faith.1 They are liable also for property not accounted for.2


      1 U. S. v. McClane, 74 Fed., 153; U. S. v. Roberts, 10 Fed., 540.
      2 U. S. v. Young, 44 Fed., 168. Compare U. S. v. Sinnott, 26 Fed., 84.
      Technical failure to account: The failure of an Indian agent, through clerical errors, to account for property does not justify a recovery of the value thereof, where it is shown that the property actually remains at the agency. Nominal damages only can be recovered. U. S. v. McClane, 74 Fed., 153; U. S. v. Patrick, 73 Fed., 800; 20 C. C. A., 11; U. S. v. Young 44 Fed., 168.
      The burden of proof of the amount of loss is on the United States. U. S. v. Young, 44 Fed., 168.
      Failure to account for property can not be proven, in an action against bondsmen, upon an allegation of failure to account for moneys received. U. S. v. McClane, 74 Fed., 153.
      Evidence: A Treasury transcript, showing the value of property unaccounted for, is not admissible as evidence under U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 886 [U. S. Comp. Stat. (1901) p. 670]. U. S. v. Smith, 35 Fed., 490.

D. Criminal prosecutions31. Criminal offenses(a) In general.—Decisions with respect to criminal offenses generally, when committed in the Indian country, or by or against Indians, are given in the accompanying note.4


3 As to power of Congress to define and punish crimes committed by or against Indians see Commerce, 7 Cye., 418, 425.
      4 Adultery is a crime under the laws of the United States when committed on an Indian reservation. Goodson v. U. S., 7 Okla., 117; 54 Pac., 423. It is included in the term "misdemeanor," as used in the rules promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior on Dec. 2, 1882, for the government of Indians on the Umatilla and other reservations. U. S. v. Clapox, 35 Fed., 575; 13 Sawy., 349.
      Cutting timber: The Cherokee lands are not "lands of the United States" within the meaning of U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 5388 [U. S. Comp. Stat. (1901) p. 3649], providing a penalty for cutting timber on such lands. U. S. v. Reese, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16137; 5 Dill., 405.
      Forgery: An Indian may be convicted for forging and presenting an order for intoxicating liquors, although it is against the law to sell them to Indians. People v. James, 110 Cal., 155; 42 Pac., 479.
      Homicide: Murder is punishable by death under the laws of the United States (U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), secs. 2145, 5339; U. S. v. Martin, 14 Fed., 817; 8 Sawy., 473); and this law includes the murder of one Indian by another, since the passage of 23 U. S. Stat. L., 385, and the provision of that statute was not repealed by 29 U. S. Stat. L., 487 (Good Shot v. U. S., 104 Fed., 257; 43 C. C. A., 525). A pagan Indian who, believing in an evil spirit in human shape called a Wendigo, shot and killed another Indian under the impression that he was the Wendigo, was properly convicted of manslaughter. Reg. v. Machekequonabe, 28 Ont., 309. An assault with intent to kill, by an Indian upon an Indian, on a reservation in a State, is indicatable under U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 5346 [U. S. Comp. Stat. (1901) p. 3631], since the passage of 23 U. S. Stat. L., 385 (U. S. v. Logan, 105 Fed., 240): but it was not prior to that statute (U. S. v. Terrel, 28 Fed. Cas., No. 16453; Hempst., 422). When such an assault is committed by an Indian upon a white person, or vice versa, it is not necessary under U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 2142, to show malice (Jennings v. U. S., 2 Ind. T., 670; 53 S. W., 456); and this statute does not require that the act would be murder if death had ensued (Exp. Brown, 40 Fed., 81).
      Larceny and receiving stolen goods: Larceny, committed on an Indian reservation, is punishable under the laws of the United States and by the Federal courts. Oats v. U. S., 1 Ind. T., 152; 38 S. W., 673; In re Ingram, 12 Okla., 54; 69 Pac., 868; U. S. v. Ewing, 47 Fed., 809; U. S. v. Bridleman, 7 Fed., 894; 7 Sawy., 243; Anonymous, 1 Fed. Cas., No. 447; Hempst., 413. In Canada an Indian can not be indicted for larceny for cutting and removing wood from land on the reservation. Recourse must be had to the summary proceedings provided by the Indian Act (Can. Rev. Stat., c. 43). Reg. v. Johnson, 8 Can. L. T., 334. The United States statute, U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 5357 [U. S. Comp. Stat. (1901) p. 3639], defining the offense of receiving stolen goods and prescribing its punishment is in force in the Indian Territory. Bise v. U. S. (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 921.
      Rape, by an Indian man upon an Indian woman, punishable by death under U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 5345 [U. S. Comp. Stat. (1901) p. 3630] and 23 U. S. Stat. L., 385, is made punishable by imprisonment at the discretion of the court by U. S. Rev. Stats. (1878), sec. 5325 [U. S. Comp. Stat. (1901), p. 3620]. Assault with intent to commit rape, committed by an Indian man upon an Indian woman, both residing on a reservation, is not cognizable as a crime by any statute of the United States, and the Federal courts have no jurisdiction. U. S. v. King, 81 Fed., 625.
      Robbery, committed in the Indian country, was not punishable as such under U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878). sec. 2145. Anonymous, 1 Fed. Cas., No. 447; Hempst., 413. Under 25 U. S. Stat. L., 787, a conviction of assault with intent to rob may be had, although the robbery is actually accomplished. The crime is not merged into the crime of robbery, for the reason that the United States statutes do not provide any punishment for the crime of robbery in the Indian country. Axhelm v. U. S., 9 Okla., 321; 60 Pac., 98.
      Using a deadly weapon in resisting an Indian agent who was making a search for spirituous liquors on the reservation is not an offense under U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 5447 [U. S. Comp. Stat. (1901), p. 3678]. Mackey v. Miller, 126 Fed., 161; 62 C. C. A., 139.
      In the Indian Territory a person may be indicted and punished for an offense not defined by statute, but which exists by the common law. Carter v. U. S., 1 Ind. T., 342; 37 S. W., 204.
      In Canada it is a misdemeanor to rent lands from an Indian. Reg. v. Hagar, 7 U. C. C. P., 380.

[145] (b) Selling or furnishing liquor(1) In general.—Selling or furnishing intoxicating liquors to Indians is a criminal offense by act of Congress,5 and by statutory enactment in some of the States and Territories of the Union6 and in Canada.7 Under such statutes an Indian, as well as any other person, is chargeable with the commission of this crime.8


      5 U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 2139; 27 U. S. Stat. L., 260; 29 U. S. Stat. L., 506. And see U. S. v. Cohn, 2 Ind. T., 474; 52 S. W., 38; U. S. v. Lariviere, 93 U. S., 188; 23 L. Ed., 846; U. S. v. Warwick, 51 Fed., 280; In re McDonough, 49 Fed., 360; Waters v. Campbell, 29 Fed. Cas., No. 17264; 4 Sawy., 121; U. S. v. Shaw-mux, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16268; 2 Sawy., 364.
      Grade of offense and punishment see Bruguier v. U. S., 1 Dak., 5; 46 N. W., 502; Fowler v. U. S., 1 Wash. T., 3.
      A person arrested by military officers for violation of the statute forbidding the introduction into and sale of liquors in the Indian country is not a military prisoner, and must be delivered to the civil authorities for trial within five days, or discharged. In re Carr, 5 Fed. Cas., No. 2432; 3 Sawy., 316; Waters v. Campbell, 29 Fed. Cas., No. 17265; 5 Sawy., 17.
      6 See People v. Bray, 105 Cal., 344; 38 Pac., 731; 27 L. R. A., 158; Territory v. Guyott, 9 Mont., 46; 22 Pac., 134; Tate v. State, 58 Nebr., 296; 78 N. W., 494; Territory v. Coleman, 1 Oreg., 191; 75 Am. Dec., 554.
      7 See Reg. v. Murdock, 4 Can. Cr. Cas., 82; Reg. v. McAulay, 7 Can. L. T., 344; 14 Ont., 643 (holding that a husband may be convicted and punished for the sale of liquor to Indians by his wife); Reg. v. Duquette, 1 Can. L. T., 702; 9 Ont. Pr., 29; Re Metcalfe, 17 Ont., 357; Reg. v. MacKenzie, 6 Ont., 165, holding that a conviction under the Indian Act (1880) for giving intoxicating liquor to an Indian is invalid unless it is shown that the liquor was not used under the sanction of a medical man or minister of religion.
      The penalty may be imprisonment and fine, or either; but not a fine with imprisonment in default of payment, except where the offense is selling liquor to Indians on board a vessel. Ex p. Goodine, 7 Can. L. T., 22; Reg. v. MacKenzie, 4 Can. L. T., 343; 6 Ont., 165.
      8 U. S. v. Tom, 1 Oreg., 26; U. S. v. Miller, 105 Fed., 944; U. S. v. Shaw-mux, 27 Fed., Cas., No. 16268; 2 Sawy., 364.

(II) What Indians protected.—It has been held that under the various statutes on the subject are included Indians to whom allotments of land have been made, so long as the title thereto is held in trust by the Government;9 every Indian under


      9 Farrell v. U. S., 110 Fed., 942; 49 C. C. A., 183. And see U. S. v. Kopp, 110 Fed., 160.


{Page 743}

the charge of a superintendent or agent,1 wherever he may be;2 and all Indians, including mixed bloods, over whom the Government exercises guardianship.3


      1 Territory v. Guyott, 9 Mont., 46; 22 Pac., 134; Renfrow v. U. S., 3 Okla., 161; 41 Pac., 88; U. S. v. Hurshman, 53 Fed., 543; U. S. v. Osborn, 2 Fed., 58; 6 Sawy., 406.
      Actual control by the agent is not essential if the Indian belongs to the tribe over which the agent has charge. U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. (U. S.), 407; 18 L. Ed., 182; U. S. v. Earl, 17 Fed., 75; 9 Sawy., 79; U. S. v. Oshorn, 2 Fed., 58; 6 Sawy., 406; U. S. v. Flynn, 25 Fed. Cas., No. 15124; 1 Dill., 451.
      Indians born in Oregon are prima facie members of some Oregon tribe and are therefore under the charge of the superintendent of Indian affairs in Oregon. U. S. v. Wirt, 28 Fed. Cas., No. 16745; 3 Sawy., 161.
      In Canada to support a conviction before an Indian agent, for selling liquor to Indians, it must appear that they were Indians over whom that agent had jurisdiction. Reg. v. McAulay, 7 Can. L. T., 344; 14 Ont., 643.
      2 U. S. v. Burdick, 1 Dak., 142; 46 N. W., 571; U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. (U. S.), 407; 18 L. Ed., 182; U. S. v. Miller, 105 Fed. 944; U. S. v. Earl, 17 Fed., 75; 9 Sawy., 79; U. S. v. Osborn, 2 Fed., 58; 6 Sawy., 406; U. S. v. Shaw-mux, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16268; 2 Sawy., 364.      3 29 U. S. Stat. L., 506. And see U. S. v. Miller, 105 Fed., 944. Indian students at Carlisle school are included in its provisions. U. S. v. Belt, 128 Fed., 168.

[146] (III) Intent and knowledge.—Under an indictment for selling liquor to an Indian it is not necessary to prove criminal intent.4 And a claim that defendant did not know that the person to whom he sold was an Indian is no defense.5


     4 U. S. v. Miller, 105 Fed., 944; U. S. v. Leathers, 26 Fed. Cas., No. 15581; 6 Sawy., 17.
      5 U. S. v. Stofello (Ariz., 1904), 76 Pac., 611.
      In Canada it is a good defense if the seller did not know and had no means of knowing that a half-breed to whom he sold shared in the Indian treaty payments and was therefore within the meaning of the Indian Act. Reg. v. Mellon, 5 Terr. L. R., 301.
     

(c) Introducing liquor into the Indian country(I) In general.—Introducing liquor into the Indian country is prohibited by act of Congress, and is subject to the same penalties applicable to the crime of selling or giving liquor to an Indian.6 The transportation of liquors as an article of commerce across a reservation is not a violation of the statute.7


6 See. U. S. v. Stephens, 12 Fed., 52; 8 Sawy., 116; In re Carr, 5 Fed. Cas., No. 2432; 3 Sawy., 316, statute extends to Alaska. And see supra, IV, D, 1 (b), (I).
      Beer: Prior to the passage of 27 U. S. Stat. L. 260, the statute did not prohibit the introduction of beer. Sarlls v. U. S., 152 U. S., 570; 14 S. Ct., 720; 38 L. Ed., 556; In re McDonough, 49 Fed., 360.
      Ordering whisky to be shipped to the Indian country by a wholesale dealer is not a violation of the statute. U. S. v. Stephens, 12 Fed., 52; 8 Sawy., 116.
      Payment of the internal revenue tax as a retail liquor dealer does not relieve one from the penalty imposed by the statute. U. S. v. Forty-three Gallons of Whisky, 108 U. S., 491; 2 S. Ct., 906; 27 L. Ed., 803; U. S. v. Ellis, 51 Fed., 808.
      7 U. S. v. Carr, 2 Mont., 234; U. S. v. Four Bottles Sour-Mash Whisky, 90 Fed., 720; U. S. v. Twenty-nine Gallons of Whisky, 45 Fed., 847.

(II) Seizures and forfeiture.—Where liquor is introduced into the Indian country in violation of law, the liquor itself, the instruments or means used in conveying it thither, and the goods found in company with the liquors are subject to seizure and forfeiture.8 The seizure can be made only when the liquors are found in the Indian country.9


      8 U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 2140. And see U. S. v. Lucero, 1 N. Mex., 422; American Fur Co. v. U. S., 2 Pet. (U. S.), 358; 7 L. Ed., 450; U. S. v. Twenty-nine Gallons of Whisky, 45 Fed., 847.
      Teams used in conveying liquor into an Indian reservation may be rightfully seized, although the property of another than the one so using them. Webb v. Nickerson, 11 Oreg., 382; 4 Pac., 1126.
      9 U. S. v. Certain Property, 1 Ariz., 31; 25 Pac., 517; American Fur Co. v. U. S., 2 Pet. (U. S.), 358; 7 L. Ed., 450; Palcher v. U. S., 11 Fed., 47; 3 McCrary, 510.
      A military officer seizing liquors supposed to be in the Indian country when they are not is liable as a trespasser. Bates v. Clark, 95 U. S., 204; 24 L. Ed., 471.
      Who may make: A seizure must be made by an officer named in the statute, and no other. U. S. v. The Cora, 1 Dak., 1; 46 N. W., 503.

2. Criminal jurisdiction(a) In general.—Up to the year 1885 crimes committed in the Indian country were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States courts, except crimes committed by one Indian against the person or property of another, which were punishable solely by the laws of the tribes.10 The [147] State courts had no jurisdiction.11 By a statute enacted in that year jurisdiction over murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny when committed by an Indian, was vested in the United States and territorial courts.12


      10 1 U. S. Stat. L., 469; 2 U. S. Stat. L., 139; 4 U. S. Stat. L., 729; U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sees. 2145, 2146. And see U. S. v. Monte, 3 N. Mex., 126; 3 Pac., 45; Exp. Kan-gi-shun-ca, 109 U. S. 556; 3 S. Ct., 396; 27 L. Ed., 1030; U. S. v. Rogers, 4 How. (U. S.), 567; 11 L. Ed., 1105; U. S. v. Barnhart, 22 Fed., 285; 10 Sawy., 491; U. S. v. Cha-to-kah-na-pe-sha, 25 Fed. Cas., No. 14789a; Hempst., 27; U. S. v. Sanders, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16220; Hempst., 483.
      The United States court for Arkansas had no jurisdiction to hear, try, and punish offenses committed in the Indian country west of Arkansas, until the passage of 5 U. S. Stat. L., 680. U. S. v. Alberty, 24 Fed. Cas., No. 14426; Hempst., 444; U. S. v. Ivy, 26 Fed. Cas., No. 15451; Hempst., 562; U.S.v. Starr, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16379; Hempst., 469. An indictment pending in the United States court for the eastern district of Arkansas for an offense committed in the Indian country could be tried in that court after the passage of the act of Congress dividing the district, and giving jurisidction over the Indian-country to the western division. U.S.v. Dawson, 15 How. (U.S.), 467; 14 L. Ed. 775.
      The revocation of an executive order creating a reservation does not affect the jurisdiction of the United States court to try an indictment found after the revocation for a murder committed before. U.S.v. Knowlton, 3 Dak., 58; 13 N. W., 573; U.S.v. Brave Bear, 3 Dak., 34; 13 N. W., 565.
      As to criminal jurisdiction of tribal courts see II, C, 3 (d).
            11 Pickett v. U.S., 1 Ida., 523; State v. McKenney, 18 Nev., 182; 2 Pac., 171.       12 23 U.S. Stat. L., 385. And see U.S.v. Ward, 42 Fed., 320.
      Want of notice to defendant of the enactment of this statute is no defense to an indictment under its provisions. U. S. v. Whaley, 37 Fed., 145; 13 Sawy., 548.
     

(b) On reservations in a State(1) Over Indians.—A State has no jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians within a reservation, such jurisdiction being in the United States or the tribal courts.13


13 U.S. Rev. Stat. (1878), secs. 2145, 2146; 23 U. S. Stat. L., 385. And see State v. Campbell, 53 Minn., 354; 55 N. W., 553; 21 L. R. A., 169; Exp. Cross, 20 Nebr., 417; 30 N. W., 428; U. S. v. Thomas, 151 U. S., 577; 14 S. Ct., 426; 38 L. Ed., 276; U. S. v. Kaga

{Page 744}

      ma, 118 U. S., 375; 6 S. Ct., 1109; 30 L. Ed., 228; In re Lincoln, 129 Fed., 247; Peters v. Malin, 111 Fed., 244; In re Blackbird, 109 Fed., 139; U. S. v. Logan, 105 Fed., 240; U. S. v. King, 81 Fed., 625. But see State v. Foreman, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.), 256; State v. Doxtater, 47 Wis., 278; 2 N. W., 439; State v. Harris, 47 Wis., 298; 2 N. W., 543.
      Tribal Indians: Only tribal Indians are within the acts of Congress and State courts are not thereby deprived of jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians who either have never sustained or have severed all tribal relations. People v. Turner, 85 Cal., 432; 24 Pac., 857; People v. Ketchum, 73 Cal., 635; 15 Pac., 353; Jackson v. Goodell, 20 Johns. (N. Y.), 188; In re Peters, 2 Johns, Cas. (N. Y.), 344; State v. Smokalem, 37 Wash., 91; 79 Pac., 603; State v. Howard, 33 Wash., 250; 74 Pac., 382; State v. Williams, 13 Wash., 335; 43 Pac., 15. Indians living in the tribal relation are not subject, in their internal social relations, either to the laws of the States or of the United States. U. S. v. Barnaby, 51 Fed., 20. Citizenship of an Indian allottee conferred by Congress is not inconsistent with the status of a tribal Indian, and the State courts can not punish crimes committed by one such Indian against another. State v. Columbia George, 39 Oreg., 127; 65 Pac., 604.

{Page 744}

(II) Over persons not Indians.—Crimes committed by white persons on a reservation within a State, except where jurisdiction over such reservation has been expressly reserved to the United States courts upon admission of the State to the Union, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State courts.1 If the jurisdiction of the United States is so reserved by any treaty or statute, the United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction.2


     1 Alabama: Caldwell v. State, 1 Stew. & P., 327.
      Georgia: State v. Tassels, Dudley, 229.
      Kansas: State v. O’Laughlin, 29 Kans., 20; McCracken v. Todd, 1 Kans., 148.
      Minnesota: State v. Campbell, 53 Minn., 354; 55 N. W., 553; 21 L. R. A., 169.
      Nebraska: Marion v. State, 16 Nebr., 349; 20 N. W., 289; 20 Nebr., 233; 29 N. W., 911; 57 Am. Rep., 825; Painter v. Ives, 4 Nebr., 122.
      United States: Drapel v. U. S., 164 U. S., 240; 17 S. Ct., 107; 41 L. Ed., 419; U. S. v. McBratney, 104 U. S., 621; 26 L. Ed., 869; U. S. v. Hadley, 99 Fed., 437.
      See 27 Cent. Dig., tit. “Indians,” sec. 64.
      Reservations created within a State, after its admission, are nevertheless within the jurisdiction of the State courts as to crimes committed by white persons. Exp. Sloan, 22 Fed. Cas., No. 12944; 4 Sawy., 330.
      An allottee under 24 U. S. Stat. L., 388, is subject to the jurisdiction of the State courts, even for an offense committed against an Indian on a reservation. In re Now-ge-zhuck, 69 Kans., 410; 76 Pac., 877; U. S. v. Kiya, 126 Fed., 879.
      2 U. S. v. Partello, 48 Fed., 670; U. S. v. Bridleman, 7 Fed., 894; 7 Sawy., 243.
      An allottee on the Umatilla reservation in Oregon, charged with murder on such reservation, could be tried only in the Federal courts. State v. Columbia George, 39 Oreg., 127; 65 Pac., 604; U. S. v. Logan, 105 Fed., 240.

(c) In a State, not on a reservation.—The State courts have exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by tribal or other Indians within the State and outside the limits of any Indian reservation.3


      3 Colorado: Pablo v. People, 23 Colo., 134; 46 Pac., 636; 37 L. R. A., 636.
      Kansas: Rubideaux v. Vallie, 12 Kans., 28; Hunt v. State, 4 Kans., 60.
      Montana: State v. Little Whirlwind, 22 Mont., 425; 56 Pac., 820; State v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont., 33; 55 Pac., 1026.
      North Carolina: State v. Ta-cha-na-tah, 64 N. C., 614.
      Washington: State v. Williams, 13 Wash., 335; 43 Pac., 15.
      United States: In re Wolf, 27 Fed., 606; U. S. v. Sa-coo-da-cot, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16212; 1 Abb., 377; 1 Dill., 271. And see U. S. v. Kiya, 126 Fed., 879, rape committed by an Indian residing on allotted land.

(d) In a Territory(1) Over Indians.—An Indian charged with the commission [148] of any offense specified in the act of March 3, 1885,4 must be tried in the Territorial courts and under Territorial laws.5 It is improper to try him before the district court of the Territory while sitting as a United States court.6 In regard to offenses not named in that act, and punishable under the laws of the United States, the Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.7


      4 23 U. S. Stat. L., 385. For list of crimes see supra, IV, D, 2, (a).
      5 Goodson v. U. S., 7 Okla., 117; 54 Pac., 423; Exp. Captain Jack, 130 U. S., 353; 9 S. Ct., 546; 32 L. Ed., 976; Exp. Gon-shay-ee, 130 U. S., 343; 9 S. Ct., 542; 32 L. Ed., 973.
      6 Exp. Captain Jack, 130 U. S., 353; 9 S. Ct., 546, 32 L. Ed., 976; Exp. Gon-shay-ee, 130 U. S., 343; 9 S. Ct., 542; 32 L. Ed., 973.
      7 Welty v. U. S., 14 Okla., 7; 76 Pac., 121; Goodson v. U. S., 7 Okla., 117; 54 Pac., 423.

(II) Over persons not Indians.—The United States courts in a territory have exclusive jurisdiction over all crimes punishable by the laws of the United States, when committed by persons other than Indians, on an Indian reservation.8 Territorial laws which attempt to punish acts made criminal by the laws of the United States have no force within an Indian reservation.9


      8 U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 2145. And see McCall v. U. S., 1 Dak., 320; 46 N. W., 608; Welty v. U. S., 14 Okla., 7; 76 Pac., 121; Herd v. U. S., 13 Okla., Stat., Pac., 291; In re Ingram (Okla., 1902), 69 Pac., 868; Ellis v. U. S., 11 Okla., 653: 69 Pac., 787; Barclay v. U. S., 11 Okla., 503; 69 Pac., 798; Goodson v. U. S., 7 Okla., 117; 54 Pac., 423; Exp. Wilson, 140 U. S., 575; 11 S. Ct., 870; 35 L. Ed., 513.
      Cherokee outlet: Prior to the organization of Oklahoma Territory, jurisdiction of a murder committed in the Cherokee outlet was in the United States District court of Kansas, under the act of 22 U. S. Stat. L., 400. U. S. v. Soule, 30 Fed., 918. But since the organization of Oklahoma Territory that part of the outlet not included therein, but which was attached for judicial purposes to a judicial district of the Territory, continued to be Indian country; and the offense of horse stealing committed therein was within the jurisdiction of the District court, sitting as a court of the United States. U. S. v. Pridgeon, 153 U. S., 48; 14 S. Ct., 746; 38 L. Ed., 631.
      9 Goodson v. U. S., 7 Okla., 117; 54 Pac., 423.
     

3. Procedure(a) In general.—The rules of the common law govern as to procedure in criminal cases arising in the Indian country, except where other provision is made by statute.10


10 See Goodson v. U. S., 7 Okla., 117; 54 Pac., 423; Shapoonmash v. U. S., 1 Wash. T., 188; Palmer v. U. S., 1 Wash. T., 5.

(b) Warrant.—An officer at an Indian agency has no authority to arrest a resident on such reservation without a warrant, on a charge of misdemeanor not committed in his presence.11


      11 John Bad Elk v. U. S., 177 U. S., 529; 20 S. Ct., 729; 44 L. Ed., 874.

(c) Indictment or information12(1) In general.—Where jurisdiction over offenses by one Indian against another is reserved to the tribal courts, an indictment


      12 Sufficiency of allegation of venue see Beebe v. U. S., 2 Dak., 292; 11 N. W., 505; U. S. v. Ewing, 47 Fed., 809.

{Page 745}

in a Federal court must aver that either defendant or the party injured was not an Indian.1 An information filed in the State court of a county containing within its limits a part or the whole of an Indian reservation, against a person described as an Indian, need not, in order to confer jurisdiction, aver either that such person does not sustain tribal relations or that the offense was not committed within the limits of such reservation.2 Under the constitution of the Creek Nation, requiring the prosecuting attorney to indict all offenders, the finding of an indictment by a grand jury is not necessary.3


      1 Lucas v. U. S., 163 U. S., 612; 16 S. Ct., 1168; 48 L. Ed., 282; Wheeler v. U. S., 159 U. S., 523; 16 S. Ct., 93; 40 L. Ed., 244; Westmoreland v. U. S., 155 U. S., 545; 15 S. Ct., 243; 39 L. Ed., 255. But see Herd v. U. S., 13 Okla., 512; 75 Pac., 291.
      2 State v. Williams, 13 Wash., 335; 43 Pac., 15. And see State v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont., 33; 55 Pac., 1026.
      3 Exp. Tiger, 2 Ind. T., 41; 47 S. W., 304.

(II) Under liquor laws.4—In an indictment for the sale of liquor to [149] Indians it is not necessary to name the Indians to whom the liquor was sold.5 An indictment charging that defendant “did give and sell” intoxicating liquors to an Indian,6 or did introduce into the Indian country certain “ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine, and intoxicating liquors”7 is not bad as stating two offenses.


      4 Sufficiency of allegations see Laurent v. State, 1 Kans., 313.
      Variance: Under 29 U. S. Stat. L., 506, where an indictment alleged that the Indian to whom the liquor was sold was a ward of the Government, and the proof showed also that he was an Indian to whom an allotment of land had been made, there was no variance. Mulligan v. U. S., 120 Fed., 98; 56 C. C. A., 50.
      Names of witnesses: On an indictment for selling liquor to Indians in Alaska, the accused has the right to have indorsed on the indictment only the witnesses examined before the grand jury, this being the provision of the Oregon statute made applicable by the act of Congress. Shelp v. U. S., 81 Fed., 694; 26 C. C. A., 570.
      5 People v. Faust, 113 Cal., 172; 45 Pac., 261; State v. Jackson, 4 Blackf. (Ind.), 49; Foerster v. U. S., 116 Fed., 860; 54 C. C. A., 210; U. S. v. Warwick, 51 Fed., 280.
      6 Bruguier v. U. S., 1 Dak., 5; 46 N. W., 502; Reg. v. Monaghan, 34 Can. L. J., 55; 18 Can. L. T. Oce. Notes, 45.
      7 Parris v. U. S., 1 Ind. T., 43; 35 S. W., 243.

(d) Bail.—The giving and forfeiture of bail in the Indian Territory is governed by the provisions of the Arkansas statute,8 and the United States statute relating thereto 9 has no force therein.10


      8 28 U. S. Stat. L., 696.
      9 U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), § 1014 [U. S. Comp. Stat. (1901), p. 716].
      10 Simon v. U. S. (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 280.

(e) Venue.—To entitle an Indian to a change of venue under the act of Congress11 his citizenship in the tribe must be shown.12


      11 30 U. S. Stat. L., 511.
      12 Bruner v. U. S. (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 244.

(f) Burden of proof.—Where the jurisdiction depends upon the status of one of the parties, his status is a question of fact for the jury, and the burden of proof is on the Government.13


      13 State v. Howard, 33 Wash., 250; 74 Pac., 382; Lucas v. U. S., 163 U. S., 612; 16 S. Ct., 1168; 48 L. Ed., 282; Smith v. U. S., 151 U. S., 50; 14 S. Ct., 243; 38 L. Ed., 67.

(g) Appeal.14—In the prosecution of an Indian for crime, the jurisdiction of the State courts can be challenged for the first time on appeal.15


      14 In Canada, where notice of appeal has been given and security provided within 30 days, it is sufficient to save the appeal, under the Indian Act (Can. Rev. Stat. c. 43, § 108). Reg. v. McGauley, 7 Can. L. T., 395.
      15 State v. Howard, 33 Wash., 250; 74 Pac., 382.

E. Civil jurisdiction of State and Territorial courts.—State courts have jurisdiction over controversies respecting lands lying wihin the State and belonging to or claimed by Indians,16 other than tribal lands.17 They have jurisdiction generally over actions on contracts made with Indians18 and actions sounding in tort.19 The property of a tribal Indian on a reservation does not, on his death, become subject to the State laws of distribution, but descends in accordance with the custom of the tribe; and the State courts have no jurisdiction to appoint an administrator.20 Nor have they jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for minor children on a reservation.21


      16 Wright v. Marsh, 2 Greene (Iowa), 94; Telford v. Barney, 1 Greene (Iowa), 575; Bem-way-bin-ness v. Eshelby, 87 Minn., 108; 91 N. W., 291; Bird v. Winyer, 24 Wash., 269; 64 Pac., 178.
      17 Exp. Forbes, 9 Fed. Cas., No. 4921; 1 Dill., 363.
      18 Brashear v. Williams, 10 Ala., 630; Stevenson v. Christie, 64 Ark., 72; 42 S. W., 418; Hicks v. Ewhartonah, 21 Ark., 106; Stacy v. La Belle, 99 Wis., 520; 75 N. W., 60; 67 Am. St. Rep., 879; 41 L. R. A., 419.
      Jurisdiction of white persons or their property when residing on a reservation: Where a treaty provides that the reservation shall never be made a part of any State or Territory, the District courts of a Territory have no jurisdiction over white persons thereon. Langford v. Monteith, 102 U. S., 145; 26 L. Ed., 53; Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S., 476; 25 L. Ed., 237. A State has jurisdiction over the property of a white man residing on a reservation with the consent of a tribe, and the entry by an officer to levy an execution is not prohibited by the provision in the enabling act that all Indian lands in the State “shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States.” Stiff v. McLaughlin, 19 Mont., 300; 48 Pac., 232.
      19 Bates v. Printup, 31 Misc. (N. Y.), 17; 64 N. Y. Suppl., 561.
      20 U. S. v. Shanks, 15 Minn., 369; U. S. v. Payne, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16014; 4 Dill., 387. And see supra, II, C, 3, (b). But compare Brashear v. Williams, 10 Ala., 630; Reed v. Brasher, 9 Port. (Ala.), 438.
      21 Peters v. Malin, 111 Fed., 244; In re Lelah-puc-ka-chee, 98 Fed., 429. But see Farrington v. Wilson, 29 Wis., 383.

F. Taxation221. Of Indians.—Although Indians maintaining tribal relations within the Indian country can not be taxed by a State,23 yet where a reservation


      22 For taxation by Indian tribes or nations see supra, II, C, 3, (c); IV, B, 2, (b).
      For taxation of tribal lands see supra, III, A, 6.
      23 State v. Ross, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.), 74; Fellows v. Deniston, 5 Wall. (U. S.), 761; 18 L. Ed., 708; In re Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. (U. S.), 737; 18 L. Ed., 667; U. S. v. Higgins, 103 Fed., 348.

{Page 746}

within a State has been extinguished and the Indians have taken allotments of land in fee simple and become citizens, their personal property is subject to taxation.1 A State can not, however, tax personal property furnished to Indian allottees by the Government to enable them to maintain themselves while the title to their allotments is held in trust by the United States, nor can it tax improvements on allotted lands so held.2


      1Keokuk v. Ulam, 4 Okla., 5; 38 Pac., 1080.
      2U. S. v. Rickert, 188 U. S., 432; 23 S. Ct., 478; 47 L. Ed., 532.

2. Of other persons.—Unless a reservation is expressly excepted from the jurisdiction of a State when admitted, or of a territory when organized, the property of all persons within the limits of the reservation, except that of Indians, is subject to taxation by the State or Territory.3


      3Wagoner v. Evans, 170 U. S., 588; 18 S. Ct., 730; 42 L. Ed., 1154 [affirming 5 Okla., 31; 46 Pac., 1117]; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S., 264; 18 S. Ct., 340; 42 L. Ed., 740 [affirming 7 Okla., 184; 54 Pac., 444]; Maricopa, etc., R. Co. v. Arizona, 156 U. S., 347; 15 S. Ct., 391; 39 L. Ed., 447; Utah, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 116 U. S., 28; 6 S. Ct., 246; 29 L. Ed., 542; Truscott v. Hurlbut Land, etc., Co., 73 Fed., 60; 19 C. C. A., 374.
      Taxation for particular purposes: The Territorial legislature may tax property on a reservation for Territorial and court funds, and exempt the same property from taxation for country purposes. Pryor v. Bryan, 11 Okla., 357; 66 Pac., 348.
      Licensed trader: Cattle and horses belonging to a licensed Indian trader, kept on an Indian reservation, are not exempt from State taxation, even if kept there with the consent of the Indians. Cosier v. McMillan, 22 Mont., 484; 56 Pac., 965; Noble v. Amoretti, 11 Wyo., 230; 71 Pac., 879; Moore v. Beason, 7 Wyo., 292; 51 Pac., 875. Contra, Foster v. Blue Earth County, 7 Minn., 140.

V. Indian Depredations.


Search | OSU Library Digitization Center

Produced by the Oklahoma State University Library
Generous support provided by The Coca-Cola Foundation, Atlanta, GA
URL: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/
      Comments to: lib-dig@okstate.edu