Simeon Hallowell v. United States
Citation | 209 U.S. 101,28 S.Ct. 498,52 L.Ed. 702 |
Decision Date | 23 March 1908 |
Docket Number | No. 175,175 |
Parties | SIMEON HALLOWELL v. UNITED STATES |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
This case is here upon certified questions by the judges of the circuit court of appeals.
The certified questions and the statement of the case which precedes them are as follows:
'The indictment was returned November 16, 1905, and charged that the defendant, on August 1, 1905, in the district of Nebraska, introduced whisky and other intoxicating liquors into the Indian country, 'to wit, into and upon the Omaha Indian Reservation, a reservation set apart for the exclusive use and benefit of certain tribes of the Omaha Indians.' The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and the case was submitted to a jury upon the following agreed statement:
'Over the defendant's objection that the matters recited in the agreed statement did not constitute or show an offense against laws of the United States, the court instructed the jury that, if the matters so recited were true, the defendant was guilty of the offense charged. The defendant reserved an exception to this ruling. The jury found him guilty.
'And the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit further certifies that the following questions of law are presented to it in said cause; that their decision is indispensable to a decision of the cause; and that, to the end that such court may properly decide the issues of law so presented, it desires the instruction of the Supreme Court of the United States upon such questions, to wit:
'1. After the allotment in severalty to the Omaha Indians of practically all of the lands in the Omaha Indian Reservation in the state of Nebraska and the issuance to the several allottees of the first, or trust, patents, under the act of August 7 1882 (22 Stat. at L. 341, chap. 434), and after the provisions of § 7 of that act and of § 6 of the act of February 8, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 388, chap. 119), had become effective as to such allottees, did Congress retain or possess the power to regulate or prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquors upon such allotments, while the title to the same should be held in trust by the United States, or while the same should remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States?
'2. Do the facts that the tribal relation of these Indians is still maintained, and that part of the lands in said reservation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
... ... No. 07-40651 ... United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit ... December 15, 2009 ... ...
-
United States v. Julius Mayer
...51 L. ed. 875, 878, 879, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 559, 214 U. S. 492, 53 L. ed. 1058, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 514; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 107, 52 L. ed. 702, 705, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; The Folmina, 212 U. S. 354, 363, 53 L. ed. 546, 551, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 363, 15 Ann. Cas. 748; Baltimor......
-
Triplett v. Lowell Mantle Lamp Co of America v. Aluminum Products Co
...the basis of the questions certified. See White v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 367, 371, 51 S.Ct. 115, 75 L.Ed. 388; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U.S. 101, 107, 28 S.Ct. 498, 52 L.Ed. 702; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U.S. 426, 435, 8 S.Ct. 193, 31 L.Ed. 190; Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U.S. 680, 7 S.Ct. 358,......
-
Hanes v. State
...federal treaties to determine whether, on the facts of this case, Hanes may be convicted of a crime. See Hallowell v. U.S ., 209 U.S. 101, 28 S.Ct. 498, 52 L.Ed. 702 (1908). Mixed questions of law and fact are treated as questions of law on appeal, and so we review this issue de novo. Taylo......