| OCR Text |
Show XX REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. hereby given jurisdiction in all such cases: aud all such Indians committing any of the above orimes against the p e y o or property of another Iudiao or other person within the boundaries of any State of the United States, and within the limits of any Indian reservation, shall be subject to the same laws, trierl in the same conrts and in the same manner, end subject to t.he same peueltiev as are all other penwns ooulmit-tinc any of the above crimee within rha exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. I beliere that this legislation was a step in the right direction and that Indians should eventually becomesubject toand e~t jothj eprotection of all laws in the same manner and to the same extent as other persons. It seems; however, to be defective in one or two particulars. It, will he observed that the section vests jurisdict,ion as to the el~unreratedc rimes, when committed in a Territory, in the Territorial side of the court, and when committed on a reservation within a State, in the United States courts, leaving jurisdiction as to crimescommitted by 111dians witbin a State but not on a reservation, in the State courts, as before the passage of the act. . The provision as to the Territories is causing some embarrass~nent fqom the fact that the cost of t.he apprehension and punishlnent of Indian offendersfalls up011 the county in which the crilue is commit,ted. This in some counties will be a matter of considerable magnitude, aud, as no revenue is derived from the Indians or from their lands, the county authorities are unwilling to bear such expeuses. The United States attorney for Dakota writes the Department of Justice that the transfer of the right to punish Indians from the United States side of the district court to the Territorial side will render the act wholly inoperative, for the reason that the cou~rticiin the Territory will not bear the expense of the prosecntio'ns and have not the ma-chinery to arrest otienders or to compel the httendauce of witnesses. He ~ t a t e tsh at in the first district court of Dakota the piincipa,l eauses on the United States side of the court have been the trial of Indians charge6 with larceny from cattlemen, and that the recent act of Con. gress will result in letting the Indians pursue their thieving without molestation. The agent at Lemhi, Idaho, writes that it does not seem just to.re-quire the tax-payers of the counties where the crimes are committed to bear the expenses, and suggests that Congress be asked for a special appropriation to defray them. In view of the ditticulties likely to arise from this source, it is believed that a change of jurisdiction from the Territorial to the United States side of the district courts in the Terri-tories, as in the ease of crimes committed on areservation in the States, would be advisable. In regard to the Indian Territory, the five civilized tribes resident therein are guaranteed, by the several treaties made with them by the United States, the right of self-government, with full jurisdiction over personsand propertyof their own people within theirrespeetivelimits,and they have their owulaws and judicial machinery for enforcing the &me. It is proper, therefore, that they should be excluded from the provisions |
