| OCR Text |
Show REPORT OF THE"CO~IBSIONEBO F INDIAN AFFAIRS. '25 , . . district judge hdding the circuit conrt of the United States for the dis-trict of California. The division of opinion was upon two questi.ons (1) a8 to whether the provisions of the above-quoted section (making it a erime for one Indian to commit mnrder upon another Indian, upon an . Indian reservation wholly within the limits of a State of the Union, and making such Indian "subject to the same laws," to be '6 tried in the same wurts, and in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties as are other persons" eommitting the ?rime of murder "within the exelusive jurisdiction of the United States,") is a constitntional and valid la,w of the United States and (2) as to whether the courts of the United States have jurisdietio~o~r authority to try and punish an Indian belonging to an Indian tribe for committing the crime of murder upon another Indian belonging to the same Indian tribe, both sustaining the usual tribal re-lations, said crime having been committed upon an Indian reservation, . made and set apart for the use of the Indian tribe to which said Indians belong. I11 disposing of this ease the United States Supreme Court held that "the ninth section OF the Indian appropriation act of Mare11 3,1885, (23 Scats., 386), is valid and constitutional in bothits branches, namely, that which gives jurisdiction to the eourta of the Territories of the erimes named (murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny), committed by Indians within the Teqi-tories, and that which give* juriwliction in like cases to courts of the United States for the anme erimes committed on an Indian reservntion within a State of the Union." (llti U. S. R., 375.) Since the Supreme Oonrt rendered t h i d~e cision several Indians have been tried by the United States courts and eonvicted of murder and other erimes named, committed upon an Indian ,reservation within a Territory, the courts holding that, were the crimes committed by a white .. man on an Indian reservation situated within the limits of a Territory, ;; ' the United States court and not the Territorial eourts would have juris-dietionover the offen~ea, nd that since the act provides that an Indian wmmitting within a Territory and on an Indian reservation any of the I crimes named in section 9 LLshalbl e tried therefor in the same courts, and in the same manner, and shall be subject to the same penalties as 'ere other persons charged with the conlmission of mid crimes," the - United States conrt has jurisdiction over tbese crimes eommitted by one .. Indian against the.person or property of another Indian on an Fdian reservation within a Territory. eon-shay-ee, an Apache Indian in Arizona, who, in accordance with that eonstruetion of the law, was tried in the United States court for that Territory, and coudemned to death for the crime of mnrder, pet<: tioned the Snpreme Court of the-United States for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the conrt which tried him had not at the time thd trial took place, and is the mode in which it was pursued, any jurisdio-tion of the ease against him. In acting upon this petition thecourt held |
