State v. Campbell

• Citation: 55 N.W. 553,53 Minn. 354
• Parties: STATE v CAMPBELL ET AL.
• Decision Date: 01 June 1893
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

53 Minn. 354

55 N.W. 553

STATEvCAMPBELL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 1, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Unless otherwise provided by treaty with an Indian tribe, or by the act admitting the state into the Union, the criminal laws of the state, except so far as restricted by the authority of congress “to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes,” extend to all crimes committed on an Indian reservation by persons other than tribal Indians.

2. But Indians, while preserving their tribal relations, and residing on a reservation set apart for them by the United States, are the wards of the general government, and as such the subject of federal authority, and the power to legislate for them is exclusively in congress. And for acts committed within the limits of the reservation, they are not subject to the criminal laws of the state.

Case certified from district court, Becker county; Mills, Judge.

Mary Campbell and one Belonge were convicted of adultery, and the cause was certified to the supreme court for the determination of questions of law on the facts found, which fully appear in the opinion.

Jeff H. Irish, H. W. Childs, Atty. Gen., and Geo. B. Edgerton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

MITCHELL, J.

The defendants were indicted, tried, and convicted, in the district court of Becker county, of the crime of adultery, committed within the limits of the White Earth reservation, in that county, which had been set apart by the United States for the residence of a tribe of Indians which still retained their tribal organization, and were under the care and supervision of the federal government. Belonge was an Indianbelonging to this tribe, who retained his tribal relations, and lived on the reservation under the charge of a government agent, and as such received annuities from the United States. Campbell was a half-blood, being the child (legitimate, as we must presume) of a white father and an Indian mother, who did not sustain any tribal relations, but lived with her husband on a farm in Pine county, where the defendant Campbell was raised, and where she was married to a white man, with whom she resided in the same county until shortly before the commisison of the alleged offense, when she left him, and went to the White Earth agency, where she has drawn one annuity from the United States as an Indian. The question which the court below certifies to this court is, in brief, whether, under this state of facts, the defendants, or either of them, are subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal laws of this state. This reservation was not excepted from the general jurisdiction of the laws of the state by the act admitting the state into the Union, and our attention has not been called to any existing treaty between the United States and this tribe of Indians excepting this reservation from the jurisdiction of the state. And we take it as well settled that, when not restricted by treaty with the Indian tribe, or by the act admitting a state into the Union, the jurisdiction of the state extends over the territorial limits of an Indian reservation so as to apply to all persons therein not tribal Indians under the care of the United States. As it is evident from the facts stated that Campbell is not a “tribal Indian,” we have no doubt that she is just as amenable to the criminal laws of the state for an offense committed on the reservation as she would have been had the offense been committed anywhere else in the state.

The case of the defendant Belonge is different. It presents just this question: When not expressly restricted or prohibited by an existing treaty with the Indian tribes, or by the act admitting a state into the Union, do the criminal laws of the state (except so far as restricted by the constitutional authority of congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes) extend and apply to tribal Indians living under the charge of the general government on a reservation set apart by the United States for that purpose, so as to make them amenable to such laws for crimes committed within the territorial limits of the reservation? The condition and status of the Indian tribes within the United States, their relations to the federal government, or to the states within whose territorial limits they happen to reside, are subjects which have given rise to much discussion in the courts, both state and federal, from a very early date. Their condition in relation to the United States is unlike that of any other two peoples. They are neither foreign nor independent nations, nor yet citizens of either the United States or of the states in which they reside. Perhaps the best statement of their position is to be found in the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, and Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515. Stated briefly, it is that, as long as they retain their tribal relations, they are domestic, dependent communities, under the guardianship and protection of the general government. While an Indian tribe resides in a territory, the ownership of the country and the right of exclusive sovereignty over it which exists in the general government would, of itself, give congress the right to legislate for the Indians as well as all other persons residing therein. And if...