Draper v. United States, 496

Decision Date30 November 1896
Docket NumberNo. 496,496
PartiesDRAPER v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

J. W. Strevell, for plaintiff in error.

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- 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 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 the provisions of any prior statute, or of any existing treaty, which are clearly inconsistent therewith. The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616. Whenever, upon the admission of a state into the Union, congress has intended to except out of it an Indian reservation, or the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over that reservation, it has done so by express words. The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737; U. S. v. Ward, supra [1 Woolw. 17, Fed. Cas. No. 16,639]. The state of Colorado, by its admission into the Union by congress upon an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, without any such exception as has been made in the treaty with the Ute Indians and in the act establishing a territorial government, has acquired criminal jurisdiction over its own citizens and other white persons throughout the whole of the territory within its limits, including the Ute reservation, and that reservation is no longer within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The courts of the United States have, therefore, no jurisdiction to punish crimes within that reservation, unless so far as may be necessary to carry out such provisions of the treaty with the Ute Indians as remain in force. But that treaty contains no stipulation for the punishment of offenses committed by white men against white men.'

U. S. v. McBratney is therefore decisive of the question now before us, unless the enabling act of the state of Montana contained provisions taking...

To continue reading

Request your trial
153 cases
  • People v. Carmen, Cr. 5286
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 17, 1954
    ...People of State of New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 497 et seq., 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261; Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 242 et seq., 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419; United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 624, 26 L.Ed. 869; see Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711,......
  • US v. Prentiss, No. 98-2040
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 12, 2001
    ...no basis whatsoever in the language of 1152 or its predecessor acts. Rather, in McBratney (and subsequent cases, namely Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896) and Martin, 326 U.S. at 496), "[t]he Court paid scant attention to the language of 1152, relying instead on the inherent juris......
  • Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1983
    ...dispositive in our consideration of state jurisdiction over Indian affairs or activities on Indian lands. In Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896), for example, this Court held that, despite the jurisdictional reservation in the Montana Enabling Act, a fed......
  • Montana v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1981
    ...82 S.Ct. 562, 569, 7 L.Ed.2d 573, and the "gradual extinction of Indian reservations and Indian titles." Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 246, 17 S.Ct. 107, 109, 41 L.Ed. 419. The Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs repeatedly emphasized that the allotment......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • The Law and Economics of Crime in Indian Country
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-3, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...U.S. 375, 378–79 (1886). 115. Id. at 383–84. 116. United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 624 (1882); see also Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 247 (1896) (relying on McBratney ); New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 499 (1946) (same). 117. Robert N. Clinton, Criminal Juris......
  • Native Treaties and Conditional Rights After Herrera.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 73 No. 4, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...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......
  • Legislative Constitutionalism and Federal Indian Law.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 132 No. 7, May 2023
    • May 1, 2023
    ...(423.) See supra Part I. (424.) Id. (425.) United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 623-24 (1881). (426.) Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 244-47 (1896). (427.) Act of June 30, 1948, ch. 759, 62 Stat. 1161, repealed by Act of Dec. 11, 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-301, 132 Stat. 4395. (428.)......
  • Structuring the Cherokee Nation Justice System: The History and Function of the Cherokee Nation Marshal Service
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Policy Review No. 12-1, March 2001
    • March 1, 2001
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT