OCR Text |
Show 24 REPORT8 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TEE INTERIOR. In violation of article 7 thereof and section 2139 of the Revised Statutes as amended, and that, second, in any such case proceedings may be taken in pur-snanee of the authority conferred by seetlon 2140 of the Revised Statutes, and, if deemed advisable, criminal prosecutions may also be instituted under the pro-visions of section 2139. The last year's experience only emphasizes anew the necessity, many times reported, of having funds that can be used to pay the legitimate expense of procuring evidence against parties who sell liquor to Indians. From several parts of the country have come requests for authority to employ detectives to procure such evidence, and the persons making the requests have said that the liquor sellers are so effectively organized and keep so constantly informed as to the movements of the United States officers that it is very hard for anyone connected with the Government service to obtain the evi-dence necessary to convict even parties who are known to be engaged in the liquor traffic among Indians. All these reports were referred to the Department with the request that they be submitted to the Department of Justice. The action taken by the Department of Jus-tice resulted in the conviction of savernl parties, and others were in jail and under indictment awaiting trial when the Supreme Court of the United States rendered its decision in whab is known as the '' Heff case." Albert Heff had been convicted in the United States district court of Kansas of selling liquor to an allotted Indian in the town of Hor-ton, which was not on an Indian reservation, and had been sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for a period of four months and to pay a h e of $200 and the costs of the prosecution. The court of appsals of the eighth circuit had previously decided the question involved adversely to the contention of Heff. Therefore, Heff applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus, and the decision already referred to, rendered by that court on April 10,1905, set the petitioner at liberty. The purport of the decision was published in the daily press, and the allotted Indians soon learned that they could obtain liquor as other people did. Reports began to pour in upon this Office from various agencies that the Indians were drinking to excess, and the agents and superintendents asked to be advised what they should now do in regard to the sale of liquor to allotted Indians in view of the decision in the Heff case. This question was submitted to the De-partment, and the Acting Attorney-General, on May 25, 1905, ren-dered an opinion from which the following extracts are taken : The scope of that decision is indicated in the following paragraph at the close of the opinion : "We are of the opinion thacwhen the United States grants the privileges of eitizenshlp to an Indian, gives to him the benefit of and requires him to ,pe sub jeet to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State, it places him outside the |