OCR Text |
Show Hall Agency arequiet and penoeable, theagent requests the withdrawal of tho troops from the ~goocya, nd to inform you that the commanding general, Departmoot of the Platte, nuder date of the21at ultimo, reports that it had been his intention to witlt-draw tlresu troops prior to tho and of the mouth, and that in V~R\V of yuur eomtnnni-catlon lne ha* isanrd order* for their withdrawal without delay. December 7, 1895, Agent Teter reported that the decision of the United States circuit court in the case of Race Horse was well uuder-stood by the Indians of the Port Hall agency, and that in his opinion it would be absolutely necessary to adopt measures to settle the question of the hnntingprivilege of the Indians on unoccupied Government land, "in order to prevent a recurrence in the year 1896 of the Jacksons Hole troubles of the past July." He recommended the appointment of a commission to negotiate with the Indians for a relinquishment of their treaty rights to hunt on unoccnpied public land. A provision to this effect was incorporated in the Indian appropriation act approved June 10,1896. May 25,1896, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the air. cuit court, and direoted the discharge of the writ and the remanding of the prisoner to the custody of the sheriff. This ophion of the Supreme Oonrt, to which Mr. Justice Brown dissented, is given herewith in full, as follows: Snpreme Coort of theunited States. No. 841.-4tober Term, 1895. J o b H. Ward, aheriff of the. ooanty of Uinta, in tbe State of Wyoming, appuant, or. Reoe Eorae. Appeal from the oirrmit coo* of theunited Statea for the Dietriot of Wyoming. May 25. 1898. This appenl was t ~ k e nfr om an order of the court below, rendered in o habew, oorpns prooeeding, discharging the appellee from oustody (70 Fed. Rep., 598). The petition far the writ based the right to the relief, whioh it prayed and whioh the aourt below rrranted. on the mound that the detention comulained of was in viola tion of the ~onatitat;ona ud.laws of the llnitad Statoh, ann in diarc~ardv f n r i ~ b t srining front and guwsnrwd1,yatro~tymndobyth t~uni t rdS tatenwith the nartoonk Indiana. ~ e c a u soef these grounds the iorisd&tion below sxisted. and the right to review here obtains. ( ~ e v i i e dS tatutes, 753; aot of March 3, 1891, 36 Stat.;826.) The record shows the following material facts: The a.ppellee, the plaintiff below, was a member of the Bannock tribe of Indians, retaining his tribal relations and resiaing with it in the Fort Hall Indim Reservation. This reaarvation wan oreated by the United States in oomplianoe with s, treaty entered into between the United States and the Eastern Bmd of Shoshones and the Bannock tribe of Indiaos,wbich took effect February 24,1869 (15 Stat., 673). Article 2 of this treaty, besides setting apart a r8serv~tionfo r the use of the Shoshonees, provided: "It is agreed that whenever the Brsllnocks desire s reservation to be set apart for their use, or vhenever the President of the United States shalldeem it advisable for them to bo put upon a reservation, he shall cause a suitable one to be seleoted for them in their present country, whioh shall embrace reasonable portions of the 'Port Neuf' and LKensas Prairie' countries." Inpnreuanceof the foregoing stipulation the Fort Hall Indian Ranerv;ltion was set apart for the nae of the Bannock triba. Article 4 of the treaty provided as followa: "The Indians hereinnamed agree, when the agency house and other buildings shall be conatruoted on their reservations named.. the.v will make saia reservations their pcrntanent honle, and they will make no parmanont settlement olseroltere; but they shall have the right to hunt upon the onoeoupied landsof the United Strtee M, |