Simeon Hallowell v. United States

Decision Date15 May 1911
Docket NumberNo. 89,89
PartiesSIMEON HALLOWELL v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Thomas L. Sloan for Hallowell.

Assistant Attorney General Harr for the United States.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

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 defendant, Simeon Hallowell, on the 1st day of August, 1905, procured at a point outside the said reservation one-half gallon of whisky, which he took to his home, which was within the limits of the Omaha Indian Reservation, and upon an allotment which he had inherited, and which allotment was made under the provisions of the act of Congress of August 7, 1882, and the title of which is held by the government, as the twenty-five-year trust period has not expired. That he took the said whisky into and upon this allotment for the purpose of drinking and using the same himself, and that he did drink said whisky and did give some of it to his friends or visitors to drink.

'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.

'That the Omaha Indian Reservation is within and a physical part of the organized territory of the state of Nebraska, as are also the allotments herein referred to, into and upon which the said defendant took said whisky. That the Omaha Indiana exercise the right of citizenship, and participate in the county and state government ex- tending over said Omaha Indian Reservation, and over and upon the allotments herein referred to. That the defendant, Simeon Hallowell, has been on frequent occasions a judge and clerk of election, a justice of the peace, an assessor, and a director of the public school district in which he lives. That Omaha Indians have taken part in the state and county government, extending over the reservation, and have held the following offices in said county of Thurston, state of Nebraska: County coroner, county attorney, county judge, justice of the peace, constable, road overseer, election officers, and have also served as jurors in the county and district courts. Defendant is self-supporting, as are most of said Indians. Some of them are engaged in business and most of them engaged in farming.'

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:

'Sec. 6. That upon the approval of the allotments provided for in the preceding section by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall cause patents to issue therefor in the name of the allottees, which patents shall be of the legal effect and declare that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted for the period of twenty-five years in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indians to whom such allotment shall have been made, or, in case of his decease, of his heirs, according to the laws of the state of Nebraska, and that, at the expiration of said period, the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian or his heirs, as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust, and free of all charge or encumbrance whatsoever.'

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:

'Sec. 7. That upon the completion of said allotments and the patenting of the lands to said allottees, each and every member of said tribe of Indians shall have the benefit of, and be subject to, the laws, both civil and criminal, of the state of Nebraska; and said state shall not pass or enforce any law denying any Indian of said tribe the equal protection of the law.'

Section 6 of the act of February 8, 1887, referred to in the question propounded,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Carmen, Application of
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 2, 1957
    ...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
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 17, 1954
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • June 28, 1929
    ...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
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1931
    ...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 ......
  • 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