OCR Text |
Show United States v. Sam Pelican and Tony Ponterre (232 U. S, 442) : The defendants were indicted for the murder of a full-blood Indian, a member of the ColviUe Tribe, on lands allotted and held in trust by the United States on the Colville Reservation. The Su-preme Court held that an Indian allotment during the trust period is Indian country within the meaning of United States Revised Stat-utes 2145, extending to the Indian country certain general lams of the United States as to the punishment of crime, and that the killing of an Indian allottee during the trust period by a person not of Indian blood, when committed on such lands, is cognizable in the Federal courts. United States v. Willis N. Birdsall; United States v. Thomas E. Brents; United States v. Everett E. Van Wert (233 U. S.) : These cases were talten to the Supreme Court to review judgment of the dis-trict court sustaining a demurrer to indictments charging respec-tively the giving and accepting of bribes. The court held that the official action which it was thought to have been influenced by a bribe need not have been prescribed by a lawfnl requirement of the execu-tive department under whose authority the officer was acting, and that the requirement need not have been prescribed by a written regu-lation but might be found in an established usage which constituted the common law of the department. In this case the court used the following language with regard to the powers of the Indian Office, which is noteworthy: In executing the powers of the Indian O5ee there is necessarily a wide range for ndmlufstrative discretion and in determining the scope of official action regard must be had to the authority conferred; and this, as we have seen. embraces erery action which may properly constitute an aid in tbe enforcement of the l.aw . Apapas v. United States (233 U. S.) : Ten persons described as In-dians mere indicted for the murder of William H. Stanley, superin-tendent of the Coahuila Indian Reservation. The Supreme Court held that murder committed by Indians on an Indian reservation is a crime against the authority of the United States, expressly punishable by the Penal Code, section 328 (35 Stat. L., 1151), and within the cognizance of the Federal courts, irrespective of the oiti-zenship of the accused. United States v. First National Banlr of Detroit, Minn.; United States v. Nichols-Chisholm Lumber Co. (233 U. S.) : These suits were instituted by the United States to set aside certain conveyances under and through which title was claimed to lands in the White Earth Indian Reservation. I t was held that within the meaning of the Clapp amendment of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 325), and the act of March 1, 1907 (34 Stat. L., 1015), removing of restrictions as to sale, incumbrance, or taxation of allotments within the White Earth |