People of State of New York Ray v. Martin

• Decision Date: 07 January 1946
• Docket Number: No. 158,158
• Citation: 90 L.Ed. 261,66 S.Ct. 307,326 U.S. 496
• Parties: PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. RAY v. MARTIN, Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, N.Y
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

326 U.S. 496

66 S.Ct. 307

90 L.Ed. 261

PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. RAY

v MARTIN, Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, N.Y.

No. 158.

Argued Dec. 13, 1945.

Decided Jan. 7, 1946.

Mr. Thomas J. McKenna, of Buffalo, N.Y., for petitioner.

Mr. Henry S. Manley, of Albany, N.Y., for respondents, Martin, Warden, and State of New York.

Mr. Charles E. Congdon, of Salamanca, N.Y., for respondent, Cattaraugus County, N.Y.

Mr. Roger P. Marquis, of Washington, D.C., for The United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

In United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869, this Court held that the State courts of Colorado, not the Federal courts, had jurisdiction to prosecute a murder of one non-Indian by another, committed on an Indian reservation located within that State. The holding in that case was that the Act of Congress, 18 Stat. 474, admitting Colorado into the union overruled all prior inconsistent statutes and treaties and placed it 'on an equal footing with the original States * * *'; that this meant that Colorado had 'criminal jurisd ction over its own citizens and other white persons throughout the whole of the territory within its limits, including the Ute Reservation'; and that consequently the United States no longer had 'sole and exclusive jurisdiction' over the Reservation, except to the extent necessary to carry out such treaty provisions which remained in force. That case has since been followed by this Court¹ and its holding has not been modified by any act of Congress. The question this case presents is whether New York, which is one of the original States, has jurisdiction to punish a murder of one non-Indian committed by another non-Indian upon the Alleghany Reservation of the Seneca Indians located within the State of New York.

In 1939, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment in a New York State court for the murder of a man in the City of Salamanca, which is within the Alleghany Reservation but has only 8 Indian families living among its 9,000 inhabitants. He later brought this habeas corpus proceeding in a county court of the State.² He alleged that since the Indian reservation was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the State courts lacked jurisdiction to try and convict him. The County Court of Wyoming County heard the case and ordered the writ dismissed. 181 Misc. 925, 47 N.Y.S.2d 883. Both the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, 268 App.Div. 218, 52 N.Y.S.2d 496, and the Court of Appeals, 294 N.Y. 61, 60 N.E.2d 541, affirmed the dismissal. ³ We granted certiorari because of the federal questions raised.

We think the rule announced in the McBratney case controlling and that the New York Court therefore properly exercised its jurisdiction. For that case and others which followed it all held that in the absence of a limiting treaty obligation or Congressional enactment, each state had a right to exercise jurisdiction over Indian reservations within its boundaries.⁴ Petitioner claims that the McBratney case differs from this proceeding in several respects. First, he contends that Colorado could exercise greater powers over its Indian reservations than New York can, by virtue of the enabling act which admitted Colorado into the union, a similar enactment being lacking here since New York is one of the original states. As we have seen, the Colorado enabling act was held in the McBratney case to put Colorado 'on an equal footing with the original States', and to repeal earlier legislation and treaties inconsistent with the enabling act. The fact that Colorado was put on an equal footing with the original states obviously did not give it any greater power than New York. nd no greater power can be inferred from the repealing function of the enabling act, since, as we shall point out, the statutes and treaties which petitioner claims deprive New York of jurisdiction do not in fact do so.

This brings us to petitioner's further contention that certain Federal statutes specifically grant the United States exclusive jurisdiction over the Seneca Reservation. He points out that the laws of the United States make murder a crime 'if committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States * * *'; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 451, 452; that Section 2145 of the Revised Statutes, 25 U.S.C.A. § 217, makes this murder statute applicable to 'Indian country'; and contends that the Seneca Reservation is Indian country, and that consequently New York has no jurisdiction to punish a murder committed on that Reservation. The cases following the McBratney case adequately answer petitioner's contentions concerning Section 2145, even if we assume, what we need not decide, that the Seneca Reservation is Indian country within the meaning of the statute. While Section 2145 of the Revised Statutes has been held applicable in territories to crimes between whites and whites which do not affect Indians,⁵ the McBratney line of decisions stands for the proposition that States, by virtue of their statehood, have jurisdiction over such crimes notwithstanding Section 2145.⁶ See also People of the State of New York ex rel. Cuttler v. Dibble, 21 How. 366, 16 L.Ed. 149.

Petitioner further contends that the McBratney rule is not applicable here because exercise of state jurisdiction over non-Indians at Salamanca would violate the Treaty of 1794, 7 Stat. 44. We can find no language in that Treaty that lends itself to such interpretation. The Treaty was one of peace and friendship between the United States and the Indians. It provided against private revenge or retaliation on account of injuries done by individuals on either side. Such injuries were to be reported by each nation to the other with a view of having the nation to which the individual offender belonged take 'such prudent measures * * * as shall be necessary to preserve * * * peace and friendship unbroken.' Art. 7. This procedure was to be followed until Congress made 'other equitable provision for the purpose.' This latter...