| OCR Text |
Show assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous we&op, arson, burglary, and larceny. There are other offenses committed by In- - dians for which thefshould be punished. We are trying to tranefom' the Indian into a law-abiding citizen, but at the present time a num-ber of offenses against society, morality, etc., are allowed to go un-punished, as they are not crimes under our laws. This condition is detrimental to good citizenship and the maintenance of Iaw and order. Sections 328 and 329 of the Criminal Code should be amended so ' as to enlarge the number of offenses and make the Indian 'subject to the same laws and the same penalties as are all other persons com- % mitting these or similar offenses. A code of laws for the guidance of the Indian courts on the several reservations would be of manifest advantage on reserpations where such courts are now the principal form of justice. I shall submit for your consideration, prior to the next session of Congress, a draft of a bill which will be designedto meet the needs of the service in these respects. COURT DECISIONS. The following cases of interest to the Indian Service were decided during the last year: La Ropw v. United States (e.99 U. X., 68).-The question involved i n this case was whether the Nelson Act of January 14, 1889 (25 , Stat. L., 642), contemplated that allotments should be made on - behalf of Indians otherwise entitled thereto but who died without selecting the land wanted. I t was held that the act mentioned con-templated only selections on the part of living Indians acting for themselves or through designated representatives. HaZZowelZ v. Cmnmnms (8.99 U. S., 506).-The coort in this case , affirmed the decision of the court of appeals.dismissing the bill for . want of jurisdiction, and held that where the death of, the allottee intestate occurred'dming the trust period the decision of the Secre-tary of the Interior determining his heirs is final andconclusive under the, provisions of 'the act of- .Time 25, 1910 (a6 Stat. L., 855), and that it was unnecessary to consider whether the court had jurisdic-tion when the'suit was begun. Fvanklin K. Lane, Secretary of the interior, 2,. U. S. erx rel. Julia' Larnere Mickadiet, nie Tiebault, and A h a 'Larnere Tie-. 6ault (decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 22, 1916).-The question of the power of the Secretary of the Interior to reopen or reconsider cases was involved in this decision, and the' court held that the words" final and conclusive," contained, in the act of June 2.5, 1910 (36 Stat. L., 8.55), describing the power |
