In re Blackbird
Decision Date | 06 June 1901 |
Docket Number | 602. |
Citation | 109 F. 139 |
Parties | In re BLACKBIRD. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
William G. Wheeler and Henry T. Sheldon, U.S. Attys.
E. R Hicks, Atty. Gen., for State of Wisconsin.
John Blackbird, an Indian, and a member of the Chippewa tribe of Indians, situate and residing on the Bad River reservation in the state of Wisconsin, on April 23, 1901, was arrested upon the said reservation by one Bert McLaughlin for setting a net for fish in Bear Trap creek, a small stream upon and mainly within said reservation. His net was seized by the gam warden, and he taken to Ashland, and tried in the municipal court, and convicted of fishing with a net, contrary to the fish and game laws of the state, and sentenced to pay a fine of $25, and costs, amounting to $11.75, and in default of payment was sentenced by the court to imprisonment at hard labor in the county jail of Ashland county for the term of 30 days. This writ is sued out at the instance of the United States government to test the legality of his conviction and imprisonment.
The evidence showed that Blackbird was a full-blooded Indian, and a member of the Chippewa tribe of Indians residing on the Bad River reservation, lying up on Lake Superior, in Wisconsin under the care of an Indian agent appointed by the United States; and the question is whether the fish and game laws of Wisconsin extend to the arrest and punishment of Indians maintaining their tribal relations and residing upon Indian reservations within the limits of the state. It is, in short the continuation of a controversy which should properly have ended with the decision of the United States supreme court in U.S. v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 6 Sup.Ct. 1109, 30 L.Ed. 228. Before that time there may have been some excuse for such decisions as that of the supreme court of Wisconsin in State v. Doxtater, 47 Wis. 278, 2 N.W. 439, where it was held that the criminal laws of this state apply to the Indians on their reservations within the state, and that the state circuit courts have jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the borders of the county of Brown, where the reservation was situated. That decision was made in 1878, before the law of congress providing a code of criminal law for Indians so situated was passed. In the case of Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L.Ed. 483, the supreme court of the United States had held that, though the Indians had, by treaty, sold their land within that state, and agreed to remove away, which they had failed to do, the state could not, while they remained on these lands, extend its laws, criminal and civil, over the tribes; that the duty and power to compel their removal was in the United States, and the tribe was under their protection, and not subjected to the laws of the state and the process of its courts. By section 9, c. 341, Act Cong. March 3, 1885, congress provided as follows:
'That immediately upon and after the date of the passage of this act all Indians, committing against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following crimes, namely, murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary and larceny within any territory of the United States, and either within or without an Indian reservation, shall be subject therefor to the laws of such territory relative to said crimes, and shall be tried therefor in the same courts and in the same manner and shall be subject to the same penalties as are all other persons charged with the commission of said crimes, respectively; and the said courts are hereby given jurisdiction in all such cases; and all such Indians committing any of the above crimes against the person or property of another Indian or other person within the boundaries of any state of the United States, and within the limits of any Indian reservation, shall be subject to the same laws, tried in the same courts and in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties as are all other persons committing any of the above crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.'
The jurisdiction of congress to pass this act, and the jurisdiction of the United States courts under it, was fully considered and settled by the supreme court in U.S. v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 6 Sup.Ct. 1109, 30 L.Ed. 228. Justice Miller, speaking for the court, given the true ground for maintaining the criminal jurisdiction of the United States over the Indians thus:
This case should and does settle the question by the highest judicial authority that, congress having taken jurisdiction of crimes committed by Indians within the limits of an Indian reservation, that jurisdiction is exclusive, and that the state laws do not extend to these cases.
The supreme court of Minnesota, in 1893, in State v. Campbell, 53 Minn. 354, 55 N.W. 553, 21 L.R.A. 169, states the true doctrine, and submits to the jurisdiction of the federal courts in these cases in the proper spirit. In an able and exhaustive opinion by Judge Mitchell, the court says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jackson
...Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030; Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681, 62 S.Ct. 862, 86 L.Ed. 1115; In re Blackbird, D.C., 109 F. 139; State v. Campbell, 53 Minn. 354, 55 N.W. 553, 21 L.R.A. 169; 39 Yale L.J. 307, "The Indian Problem and the Law." "Congress alone ha......
-
State v. Rufus
...much more distinctly than in any deliverance extant when State v. Doxtater was under consideration, some 14 years ago.” In re Blackbird (D. C.) 109 F. 139, 140, involved a prosecution brought by the state of Wisconsin against an Indian, a member of the Chippewa Tribe who resided on the Bad ......
-
Mahoney v. State Tax Commission
...478, 47 L.Ed. 532); United States v. Quiver, 241 U.S. 602 (36 S.Ct. 699, 60 L.Ed. 1196); United States v. Hamilton, 233 F. 685; In re Blackbird, 109 F. 139; In re Lincoln, 129 F. 247; State v. Rufus, 237 N.W. 67. * * * * * * '3 The Menominee Indian Mills are not liable for the State tax pla......
-
Jurisdiction-Federal or State-Victimless" Crimes Committed by Non-Indians on Indian Reservations- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1153
... ... Carmen's Petition, 165 F.Supp. 942, 948 (N.D. Cal ... 1958), aff'd sub nam., Dickson v. Carmen, 270 F ... (2d) 809 (9th Cir. 1959), cert, denied, 361 U.S. 934 ... [ 14 ] See, e.g., United States ex rel ... Lynn v. Hamilton, 233 F. 685 (W.D.N.Y. 1915); In re ... Blackbird. 109 F. 139 (W.D. Wis. 1901); Application ... of Denetclaw, 83 Ariz. 299, 320 P.2d 697 (1958); ... State v. Campbell, 53 Minn. 354, 55 N.W. 553 (1893); ... Arquette v. Schneckloth, 56 Wash.2d 178, 351 P.2d 92 ... [ 15 ] See, State of Washington v ... Confederated Bands and Tribes of ... ...