United States v. Le Bris
| Decision Date | 18 April 1887 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. LE BRIS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiff.
No appearance for defendant.
This is an information against Baptiste Le Bris under section 2139 of the Revised Statutes, for introducing spirituous liquors, 'from some place and territory outside of the Indian country, into the Indian country, to-wit, into that part thereof lying and being in the county of Polk, in said district, and being and known as the Red Lake and Pembina Indian reservation ervation.' Le Bris demurred to the information, and the judges holding the circuit court have certified to us that, upon the hearing of the issues of law thus presented, their opinions were opposed upon the following questions: (1) Is the reservation of the Red Lake and Pembina Indians in Polk county, Minnesota, Indian country, within the meaning of section 2139 of the Revised Statutes of the United States? (2) What is meant by Indian country in the heading of chapter 4, tit. 28, of the Revised Statutes, and in the sections in that chapter which define crimes committed in Indian country? (3) Does section 5596 of the Revised Statutes repeal and abolish the definition of Indian country, found in section 1 of the trade and intercourse act of June 30, 1834, (4 St. 729?) (4) If it does, are all the provisions of chapter 4, tit. 28, for punishment of crime in Indian country, nugatory? (5) If the provisions of chapter 4, tit. 28, of the Revised Statutes, are not rendered nugatory by section 5596, to what locality do they apply?
The important inquiry is whether the Red Lake and Pembina Indian reservation has been 'Indian country,' within the meaning of section 2139, since the Revised Statutes went into effect. That section is a re-enactment, in part, of section 20 of the act of June 30, 1834, c. 161, (4 St. 732,) as amended by the act of March 15, 1864, c. 33, (13St. 29,) and it was decided by this court in U. S. v. Forty-three Gallons Whisky, 93 U. S. 188, and 108 U. S. 491, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906, that this reservation was 'Indian country,' before the revision of the statutes. At that time section 1 of the act of June 30, 1834, supra, was in force, which defined the Indian country as follows: 'That all that part of the United States west of the Mississippi, and not within the states of Missouri and Louisiana, or the territory of Arkansas, and also that part of the United States east of the Mississippi river, and not within any state to which the Indian title has not been extinguished, for the purposes of this act, be taken and deemed to be the Indian...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coal & Coke Ry. Co v. Conley
...v. Simms, 49 W. Va. 554, 39 S. E. 690; Forqueran v. Donnally, 7 W. Va. 114; United States v. Le Bris, 131 U. S. 278, 7 Sup. Ct. 894, 30 L. Ed. 946; Viterbo v. Friedlander, 120 U. S. 707, 7 Sup. Ct. 962, 30 L. Ed. 776. This is more especially and emphatically true, when the former acts on th......
-
Terry v. Kolski
...56 L.Ed. 1047 (1912), citing United States v. Ryder, 110 U.S. 729, 740, 4 S.Ct. 196, 28 L.Ed. 308 (1884); United States v. Le Bris, 121 U.S. 278, 280, 7 S.Ct. 894, 30 L.Ed. 946 (1887); Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 302, 12 S.Ct. 617, 36 L.Ed. 429 (1892); United States v. Mason, 218 ......
-
State v. Jackson, 33825.
...Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204, 24 L.Ed. 471; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030;United States v. Le Bris, 121 U.S. 278, 7 S.Ct. 894, 30 L.Ed. 946;Clairmont v. United States, 225 U.S. 551, 32 S.Ct. 787, 56 L.Ed. 1201. Then, in Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 2......
-
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, Civ. No. C 75-408.
...court held Sioux lands within the Dakota Territory to be "Indian country" for jurisdictional purposes. United States v. LeBris, 121 U.S. 278, 280, 7 S.Ct. 894, 895, 30 L.Ed. 946 (1887), extended "Indian country" to include lands held under Indian title within the boundaries of a This title-......
-
Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie: Statutory Construction or Judicial Usurpation? Why History Counts
...[107]110 U.S. 729 (1884). [108]Id. at 740; accord Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 302 (1892); see also United States v. Le Bris, 121 U.S. 278 (1887). In Le Bris the question was whether when the 43d Congress, in enacting an 1874 code revision that reenacted provisions of the 1834 Indi......