Paul v. Chilsoquie

• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana
• Citation: Paul v. Chilsoquie, 70 F. 401 (U.S. Cir. Ct., D. Ind. 1895)
• Decision Date: 21 November 1895
• Docket Number: 9,255.
• Parties: PAUL v. CHILSOQUIE et al.

70 F. 401

PAUL v. CHILSOQUIE et al.

No. 9,255.

United States Circuit Court, D. Indiana.

November 21, 1895

Spencer & Branyan, for plaintiff.

Buell m. Cobb, for petitioner.

BAKER District Judge.

This is an action pending in the circuit court of Wabash county, in the state of Indiana, for the recovery of the possession of a parcel of real estate situate in the county of Huntington, in the state of Indiana, of which the defendant Chilsoquie is alleged to have possession without right. The petitioner seeks removal on the ground of bias and local prejudice which will prevent her from obtaining a fair and impartial trial either in the court where her cause is now pending or in any other court of the state into which the cause can be removed. There is no claim that the cause of action is removable into this court on the ground that the suit is one arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, or under any treaty made under their authority. Nor is it shown in the petition that this court can assume or exercise jurisdiction because the controversy or suit is one between citizens of different states. The petition avers that the plaintiff Henry C. Paul, is a citizen of the state of Indiana, and that the defendant Chilsoquie 'is a Miami Indian, and that she has never exercised any rights of citizenship in the state of Indiana; that for many years the Miami Indians have been residents of, and maintained tribal relations in, the state of Kansas, and that she has always been recognized, both by the chiefs and the head men of said tribe, as well as by the government of the United States, as a member of said tribe and that she is not a citizen of the state Of indiana, and that at the time said tribe was removed from the state of Indiana to the state of Kansas she, having been married to Francis Revarre, remained in the state of Indiana,' and that she had never removed therefrom. There is no statement in the petition that she is taxed or taxable. The counsel for the petitioner maintains that the Miami tribe of Indians has been recognized by the government as a state or nation having the right to make treaties, to carry on war, and to perform other ordinary governmental functions and that the defendant, as a citizen or subject of that tribe or nation, has the right to remove any civil controversy or suit involving the sum or value of $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, between herself and a citizen of the state of her residence, into the United States courts. The defendant is not a citizen of the United States nor of the state of Indiana. She could only become such either by being naturalized in a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of the United States, or by having the rights of citizenship conferred upon her by an act of congress or by the treaty-making power. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 5 Sup.Ct. 41. The petitioner has never become a naturalized citizen of the United States, nor have the rights of citizenship ever been conferred upon her, either by an act of congress or by the treaty-making power. In the case just cited the court said:

'Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although, in a geographical sense, born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the

...