United States v. Four Bottles Sour-Mash Whisky

• Decision Date: 03 December 1898
• Court: United States District Court, District of Washington
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. FOUR BOTTLES SOUR-MASH WHISKY.

90 F. 720

UNITED STATES v. FOUR BOTTLES SOUR-MASH WHISKY.

United States District Court, D. Washington, Eastern Division.

December 3, 1898

Wilson R. Gay, U.S. Atty., and C. E. Claypool, Asst. U.S. Atty.

F. C Robertson, for claimant.

HANFORD District Judge.

This is a case of seizure under the statutes of the United States prohibiting the introduction of spirituous or other intoxicating liquors into the Indian country. Rev. St. U.S Secs. 2139, 2140; 29 Stat.p. 506, c. 109. The information filed by the United States attorney charges that on the 10th day of August, 1898 one Daniel P. Bagnell did unlawfully take upon the Colville Indian reservation, in the state of Washington, a stock of spirituous liquors, wines, and malt liquors, and did establish a saloon in a building upon said reservation contrary to the provisions of sections 2139, 2140, Rev. St. U.S., and afterwards the Indian agent in charge of said reservation did seize and take into his possession as such officer, on behalf of the United States, all of said liquors, together with the stores, packages, and other goods introduced upon the reservation by said Bagnell, found within said saloon; and it concludes with a prayer for a decree that all of said merchandise he condemned as forfeited to the United States. Daniel P. Bagnell has appeared as claimant, and filed an answer and plea, by which he denies that the goods were taken upon the reservation unlawfully. The plea sets forth a provision contained in the act of congress of July 1, 1898, making appropriations for the current contingent expenses of the Indian department, which is as follows:

'That the mineral lands only in the Colville Indian reservation in the state of Washington, shall be subject to entry under the laws of the United States in relation to the entry of mineral lands: provided, that lands allotted to the Indians or used by the government for any purpose or by any school, shall not be subject to entry under this provision. ' St. U.S. 2d Sess. 55th Cong. p. 593, c. 545.

And it further alleges that under the license, and in the exercise of the rights granted by said act of congress, and in accordance with the general laws relating to the mineral lands of the United States, and the local laws, customs, and regulations of miners, one William Mediking, a citizen of the United States entitled to make location of mineral claims, went upon the said Colville reservation, and made discovery there of gold in paying quantities, and located the ground containing the deposits of gold which he had discovered, and claimed the same by marking the boundaries of his claim, and posting notices describing the same, and in other respects complied with the law so as to acquire a valid right to said claim, and immediately after making such location, on the 20th day of July, 1898, said William Mediking went into the exclusive possession of said claim, and thereafter the claimant, with the consent of said Mediking, erected a house upon said claim, and after obtaining a retail liquor dealer's license from the county within which said reservation is situated, and also from the collector of internal revenue of the United States, he placed in said house the stock of liquors and other merchandise which was seized by the Indian agent, and which is the identical property described in the libel of information; that said seizure was made in the house erected by the respondent upon said mining claim, and at the time of said seizure the claimant had not sold nay of said merchandise to any Indian, and it was not intended by him to sell or dispose of intoxicating liquors to Indians, but said merchandise was placed in said house to be sold to white people only. The case has been argued and submitted upon a demurrer to this plea.

The right decision of the question whether or not the goods in controversy have been forfeited to the United States by reason of unlawful introduction into the Indian country of intoxicating liquors depends upon whether or not a valid location of a claim to mineral lands situated within the Colville Indian reservation has the effect to extinguish the right of Indians to exclusively occupy the area embraced within such mineral claim. As I read the decisions of the supreme court of the United States, it is settled that the phrase 'Indian country,' as used in the Indian intercourse act of 1834, comprehends all of the public domain of the United States west of the Mississippi river, and not within the states of Missouri, Louisiana, and Arkansas, to which the Indian title...