Simeon Hallowell v. United States
Decision Date | 15 May 1911 |
Docket Number | No. 89,89 |
Parties | SIMEON HALLOWELL v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Thomas L. Sloan for Hallowell.
Assistant Attorney General Harr for the United States.
Simeon Hallowell, plaintiff in error, was convicted in the district court of the United States for the district of Nebraska upon the charge of having introduced whisky into the Indian country, in violation of the act of January 30, 1897. 29 Stat. at L. 506, chap. 109. After sentence, Hallowell took the case to the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, and that court certified to this court the question hereinafter set forth.
The certificate sets forth an agreed statement of facts upon which the case was tried in the district court, as follows:
'That the defendant, Simeon Hallowell, an Omaha Indian, is and was, on the 1st day of August, 1905, an allottee of land granted to him on the Omaha Indian Reservation, in Thurston county, Nebraska; that the allotment so made to him was made under the provisions of the act of Congress of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat. at L. 341, chap. 434); that the first or trust patent was issued to him in the year 1884, and that the twenty-five year period of the trust limitation has not yet expired; and that the fee title of the allotment so made to him is still held by the United States.
'That the said Omaha Indian Reservation has been allotted practically in whole, and that many of the allotments of deceased Omaha Indians have been sold to white people, under the provisions of the act of Congress of May 27, 1902 (32 Stat. at L. 245, 275, chap. 888); that within the original boundary limits of the Omaha Indian Reservation there are many tracts of land that have been sold, under the provisions of said act, to white persons who are the sole owners thereof, and that the full title to such lands has passed to the purchaser, the same as if a final patent without restriction upon alienation had been issued to the allottee.
'That all of the Omaha Indians who were living in the year 1884, and by law entitled to allotments, received them.
Upon this statement the circuit court of appeals certified to this court the following question:
'When, under the act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat. at L. 341, chap. 434), an allotment in severalty has been made to a tribal Indian out of lands in a tribal reservation in the state of Nebraska, and a trust patent therefor has been issued to the allottee, and when the provisions of § 7 of the said act of August 7, 1882, and of § 6 of the act of February 8, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 388, chap. 119), have become effective as to such allottee, does the fact that the United States holds the land so allotted in trust for the allottee, or, in case of his decease, for his heirs, as provided in § 6 of the said act of August 7, 1882, enable, authorize, or permit the United States to regulate or prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquors upon such allotment during the limited period for which the land so allotted is so held in trust by the United States?'
Under the act of August 7, 1882, first mentioned in the certificate, provision was made for the allotment of lands in severalty among the Indians. Section 6 of the act provides in part:
As appears from the certificate upon which this case is submitted, the trust period named in the section had not expired at the time the alleged offense was committed.
Section 7 of the act of August 7, 1882, provides:
Section 6 of the act of February 8, 1887, referred to in the question propounded,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carmen, Application of
...54 L.Ed. 200; Marchie Tiger v. Western Invest. Co., 221 U.S. 286, 315, 316, 31 S.Ct. 578, 55 L.Ed. 738, 749; Hallowell v. United States, 221 U.S. 317, 31 S.Ct. 587, 55 L.Ed. 750; United States v. Wright, 229 U.S. 226, 237, 33 S.Ct. 630, 57 L.Ed. 1160, 1166.' It was further held (232 U.S. at......
-
People v. Carmen
...United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591, 598, 36 S.Ct. 696, 60 L.Ed. 1192 (sale of liquor to Indians); Hallowell v. United States, 221 U.S. 317, 324, 31 S.Ct. 587, 55 L.Ed. 750; Cramer v. United States, 261 U.S. 219, 232, 43 S.Ct. 342, 67 L.Ed. 622; Winton v. Amos, 255 U.S. 373, 391-392, 41 S.C......
-
United States v. Taylor
...limits of the United States * * * to be citizens of the United States" does not affect the present question. Hallowell v. United States, 221 U. S. 317, 31 S. Ct. 587, 55 L. Ed. 750. While the diminutive extent of the reservation and the small number of Indians making it their home, the fact......
-
State v. Rufus
...54 L. Ed. 200;Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, 315, 316, 31 S. Ct. 578, 55 L. Ed. 738, 749;Hallowell v. United States, 221 U. S. 317, 31 S. Ct. 587, 55 L. Ed. 750;United States v. Wright, 229 U. S. 226, 237, 33 S. Ct. 630, 57 L. Ed. 1160, 1166.” Jurisdiction over the Indians ......