Draper v. United States, No. 496
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | WHITE |
| Citation | 17 S.Ct. 107,41 L.Ed. 419,164 U.S. 240 |
| Parties | DRAPER v. UNITED STATES |
| Docket Number | No. 496 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1896 |
v.
UNITED STATES.
J. W. Strevell, for plaintiff in error.
Page 241
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for the United States.
Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for the crime of murder, alleged to have been committed on the Crow Indian reservation. He moved to arrest the judgment on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to try an offense committed on the Crow reservation by other than an Indian, as such crime was exclusively cognizable by the proper court of the state of Montana. The refusal to arrest the judgment on account of this asserted want of jurisdiction is one of the errors pressed upon our attention, and our opinion on the subject will render it unnecessary to consider the other assignments.
The indictment does not state, nor does the record affirmatively show, that the accused and the deceased were negroes, but that fact is conceded both by counsel for the prisoner and the government; and upon such concession the case, as to jurisdiction, was determined below, and is here presented for consideration. Irrespective, however, of the admission of counsel as to the race to which the accused and the deceased belonged, the question of jurisdiction arises on the record, since, if, as matter of law, the reservation was not within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, as the indictment fails to charge that the crime was committed by an Indian, it necessarily follows that, if the court had jurisdiction only to punish such a crime, the want of jurisdiction appears upon the face of the record. It is clear that if the accused was an Indian, the court below had jurisdiction under the act of March 3, 1885, which, among other things, authorizes the punishment of any Indian committing the offense of murder within the boundaries of any state of the United States, and within the limits of any Indian reservation, according to the laws and before the tribunals of the United States. U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 6 Sup. Ct. 1109. The assertion of jurisdiction in the courts of the United States over the crime of mur-
Page 242
der perpetrated by one not an Indian against one not an Indian is based on the fact that the offense was committed on an Indian reservation. The contention as to want of jurisdiction rests upon the proposition that, the Indian reservation being within the state, the courts of the state had alone cognizance of crimes therein done by other than Indians. To determine these conflicting contentions requires a brief examination of the legislation organizing the territory of Montana, and which provided for the admission of that state into the Union.
The territory of Montana was organized in 1864. 13 Stat. 85. Subsequently, in 1868, the Crow Indian reservation was created (15 Stat. 649), the land of which it was composed being wholly situated within the geographical boundaries of the territory of Montana. The treaty creating this reservation contained no stipulation restricting the power of the United States to include the land embraced within the reservation in any state or territory then existing, or which might thereafter be created. The law to enable Montana and other states to be admitted into the Union was passed in 1889. 25 Stat. 676. This act embraced the usual provisions for a convention to frame a constitution, for the adoption of an ordinance directed to contain certain specified agreements, and provided that, upon the compliance with the ordained requirements, and the proclamation of the president so announcing, the state should be admitted on an equal footing with the original states. The question then is, has the state of Montana jurisdiction over offenses committed within its geographical boundaries by persons not Indians, or against Indians, or did the enabling act deprive the courts of the state of such jurisdiction of all offenses committed on the Crow Indian reservation, thereby divesting the state, protanto, of equal authority any jurisdiction over its citizens usually enjoyed by the other states of the Union?
In U. S. v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 622, this court held that where a state was admitted into the Union, and the enabling act contained no exclusion of jurisdiction as to crimes committed on an Indian reservation by others than
Page 243
Indians, or against Indians, the state courts were vested with jurisdiction to try and punish such crimes. The court there said:
'The act of March 3, 1875 [the enabling act, which provided for the admission of the state of Colorado] necessarily repeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation v. Adsit, Nos. 79-4887
...state to adjudicate a challenge directed against Indian water rights. Construing the Montana enabling act, Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 247, 17 S.Ct. 107, 109, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896), merely held that the disclaimer in Montana's enabling act did not deprive that state of power to pun......
-
State v. McCoy, No. 36224
...suit in territorial court between two non-Indians. In United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869, and Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419, the Court held that murder of one non-Indian by another on a reservation was a matter for state 'The policy of......
-
C'Hair v. Dist. Court of the Ninth Judicial Dist., S-14-0198
...of non-Indians. See, e.g., New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946); Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896); Utah & Northern R. Co. v. Fisher, 116 U.S. 28, 6 S.Ct. 246, 29 L.Ed.2d 542 (1885).McClanahan, 411 U.S. at 171......
-
U.S. v. Prentiss, No. 98-2040
...jurisdiction of a crime committed in Indian country between two non-Indians was state rather than federal crime); Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896) ("the reservation was not within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, as the indictment fails to charge that th......
-
Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation v. Adsit, Nos. 79-4887
...state to adjudicate a challenge directed against Indian water rights. Construing the Montana enabling act, Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 247, 17 S.Ct. 107, 109, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896), merely held that the disclaimer in Montana's enabling act did not deprive that state of power to pun......
-
State v. McCoy, No. 36224
...suit in territorial court between two non-Indians. In United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869, and Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419, the Court held that murder of one non-Indian by another on a reservation was a matter for state 'The policy of......
-
C'Hair v. Dist. Court of the Ninth Judicial Dist., S-14-0198
...of non-Indians. See, e.g., New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946); Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896); Utah & Northern R. Co. v. Fisher, 116 U.S. 28, 6 S.Ct. 246, 29 L.Ed.2d 542 (1885).McClanahan, 411 U.S. at 171......
-
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. U.S., No. 77-1737
...colony, of such state laws as conflict with the federal enactments." 425 U.S. at p. 483, 96 S.Ct. at p. 1646. In Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896) the Court construed the Montana Enabling Act which contained a disclaimer identical to that of New Mexico......
-
Native Treaties and Conditional Rights After Herrera.
...of opinions extending the equal-footing doctrine to Indian affairs, though they were walked back by 1905. See Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 246-47 (1896); Race Horse, 163 U.S. at 514-16; United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 382-83 (1905) (rejecting the argument that the treaty fi......
-
Structuring the Cherokee Nation Justice System: The History and Function of the Cherokee Nation Marshal Service
...F. S. (1982). Handbook of federal Indian law. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.Curtis Act of 1898, 30 Stat. 495 (1898).Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896).Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990).Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883).Five Tribes Act, 34 Stat. 137 (1906).Gamallo, M. (1995, Au......