Benson v. United States
| Decision Date | 12 November 1890 |
| Citation | 44 F. 178 |
| Parties | BENSON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Martin I. Townsend, for plaintiff in error.
M. W Norton, Asst. U.S. Atty.
The question in this case is whether the village of Salamanca, a village of white inhabitants, containing a population of 4,000 persons, and incorporated under the laws of this state is 'Indian country,' within the meaning of section 2139 of the United States Revised Statutes. For the purpose of having this question decided in this court, upon the trial in the district court, at the suggestion of both parties, the district judge made a pro forma ruling against the plaintiff in error; and, a verdict of guilty having been rendered, and sentence pronounced, the circuit and district judges, sitting together, have heard the question upon writ of error. That section declares that every person 'who introduces or attempts to introduce any spirituous liquor or wine into the Indian country shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than two years, and by a fine of not more than $300 ' The plaintiff in error was licensed to sell spirituous liquors in Salamanca by the proper local authorities conformably to the act of the legislature of this state of April 11, 1870, to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors and he has been convicted of an offense under section 2139 upon evidence which shows that he brought liquors to his place of business at Salamanca, and sold them there at various times, as by the terms of his license he was permitted to do. It is insisted for the government that, inasmuch as Salamanca is located within the exterior boundaries of the Allegany Indian reservation, the plaintiff in error was properly convicted, although there was no evidence of any attempt or intent on his part to introduce liquors into the reservation beyond the village limits. The Allegany reservation is comprised of lands in Cattaraugus county, in this state, to which the title of the Seneca Nation of Indians has not been extinguished, except to the extent effected by the leases, and the provisions of an act of congress of 1875, hereinafter referred to. Prior to the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, the states of Massachusetts and New York had each claimed territorial sovereignty over the lands; but in 1786 the dispute was settled by a cession from Massachusetts to New York of the 'sovereignty and jurisdiction of the lands,' and from New York to Massachusetts of the 'right of pre-emption of the soil from the native Indians. ' See Blacksmith v. Fellows, 7 N.Y. 401, 19 How. 366. November 11, 1794, a treaty was entered into between the United States and the Six Nations, in which the title to the lands within the Allegany reservation was acknowledged by the United States to belong to the Seneca Nation of Indians. In the progress of the general development of the country, settlements of whites grew upon this reservation, acquired names and coherency, and became flourishing communities. The Indians leased their lands within the boundaries of these settlements, and moved their domiciles elsewhere. Corporations obtained leases from the Indians, and built railroads through the reservation. Gradually the line of demarkation between the areas upon the reservation occupied by the whites and by the Indians became distinctly defined. At the time of the trial, the only resident Indians in Salamanca were two women, each of whom was married to a white man; and all the lands within the village limits were in the occupation of white men, under Indian leases. In 1875, congress passed an act to authorize the Seneca Nation to lease lands within the Cattaraugus and Allegany reservations, and to confirm existing leases. Act Feb. 19, 1875; 18 St. at Large, 330. This act provided for the appointment of commissioners to survey and establish proper boundaries and limits for the villages upon these reservations, including Salamanca. It also provided that all Indian leases of land within such limits should be valid upon the lessor and upon the Seneca Nation. It provided for successive renewals of these leases at the option of the lessees, their heirs or assigns. Finally it declared that all the municipal laws and regulations of the state of New York might be extended over and be in force within said villages. Thereafter, the boundaries were established, and the villages were incorporated, and in 1881 the state legislature (chapter 188, Laws 1881) extended the general laws of the state over the village of Salamanca, and the other villages named in the act of congress. The statute under which the plaintiff in error was convicted is found in that chapter of the Revised Statutes of the United States entitled: 'Government of Indian Country.' Section 2133 of the same chapter makes it a crime for any person other than an Indian to attempt to reside in the 'Indian country' as a trader, or to introduce goods or trade therein, without a license from the government agent. Section 2134, the same chapter, makes it a crime for any foreigner to go into the 'Indian country' without a passport from the department of the interior, or some other designated officer of the government. Manifestly, the term 'Indian country' has the same meaning in each of these sections. Consequently, if the contention for the government is sound, every merchant of Salamanca, and of the several other villages within the boundaries of the Allegany reservation, every 'butcher and baker and candlestick maker, ' and every foreigner who visits one of them, is a criminal, and subject to severe punishment by fine and imprisonment by the laws of the United States. In view of the terms of the act of congress of 1875, the statement of this proposition is the only argument necessary to show that it cannot stand. There would be an unreconcilable antagonism between statutes which forbid and punish these things and the later law of congress which recognizes the existing situation in 1875, and sanctions them. The law of 1875 authorized the state to permit all the previously prohibited acts by allowing it to extend all its municipal laws and regulations over these villages. Whether this permission enlarged in the least the sovereignty of the state over the persons and personal rights of its own citizens need not be considered; it suffices that the state has acted upon it, and has extended over these villages, among other laws, that one which allows the traffic in spirituous liquors,-- a law which was on the statute-book when the act of 1875 was passed. After this has been done, the traffic in spirituous liquors, as well as all other kinds of traffic in these villages, is sheltered by the consent of congress; and the rights of white persons to visit these villages, and to reside there, are no longer abridged by the provisions of the previous statutes. The present case might therefore be disposed of upon the consideration that the act of 1875 withdraws Salamanca, and the other villages upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ray v. Martin
...absolutely exclusive jurisdiction of crimes, whether committed by Indians or whites, on the New York State reservations. In Benson v. United States, 44 F. 178, the Circuit Court, reversing a conviction, held that Benson, operating a tavern in Salamanca, was not guilty of introducing intoxic......
-
United States v. National Gypsum Co.
...the "Indian Country." This claim is based principally upon the decision in Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204, 24 L. Ed. 471, and Benson v. United States, C. C., 44 F. 178, in which latter case the court seems to approve the decision in Bates v. Clark, supra, as respects the definition of "Indian ......
-
United States v. Myers
... ... otherwise, unattended by any semi-independent use and ... occupancy involving such title, ownership, and control as has ... always inhered in the Indians as a distinct people and not ... merely as individual wards. In re Lelah-Puc-Ka-Chee ... (D.C.) 98 F. 429-433; Benson v. United States ... (C.C.) 44 F. 178. Whether a reservation for any purpose ... affecting Indians is of a character sufficient to stamp such ... lands as Indian country within the meaning of the law must ... depend upon the scope and purpose of the act creating it, and ... the nature of the ... ...
-
United States v. Waldow
...conceded, but the government has frequently recognized the right of the state to deal with Indians within its boundary. In Benson v. U.S. (C.C.) 44 F. 178, Judge Wallace, speaking of the right of this state to exercise sovereignty over tribal Indians, said that since 1858 New York has alway......