United States v. Hadley
| Decision Date | 30 January 1900 |
| Citation | 99 F. 437 |
| Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Northern Division |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HADLEY. |
Charles E. Claypool, Asst. U.S. Atty.
Edward Whitson, for defendant.
The demurrer raises the question whether this case is cognizable in this court. The ninth section of the act of congress making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian department, etc., approved March 3, 1885 (1 Supp. Rev. St. U.S. (2d Ed.) p. 582), provides that:
'All Indians committing upon the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following crimes, namely murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill arson, burglary and larceny within any territory of the United States, and either within or without an Indian reservation, shall be subject therefor to the laws of such territory relating to said crimes, and shall be tired therefor in the same courts and in the same manner and shall be subject to the same penalties as are all other persons charged with the commission of said crimes, respectively; and the said courts are hereby given jurisdiction of all such cases; and all such Indians committing any of the above crimes against the person or property of another Indian or other person within the boundary of any state of the United States, and within the limits of any Indian reservation, shall be subject to the same laws, tried in the same courts and in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties as are all other persons committing any of the above crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.'
The indictment charges that the defendant is an Indian, and this allegation is material and necessary to bring the case within the purview of the statute, and therefore essential to the jurisdiction of the court. The defendant denies that he is an Indian, and on that ground disputes the jurisdiction of the court to deal with him for the offense charged; and for the purpose of submitting the real question in the case, as a question of law, for the court to decide, it has been stipulated as follows 'It is agreed that the parents of the defendant were married under the laws of the territory of Washington in 1873; that the father is a white man, and a naturalized citizen of the United States, and that the mother is an Indian, and a member of the Yakima tribe of Indians; that the defendant was born off the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA IND. v. United States, Appeal No. 6-72.
...the context of her culture). Smith v. Bonifer, 154 F. 883, 889 (C.C. D.Or.1907), aff'd, 166 F. 846 (C.A. 9, 1909); cf. United States v. Hadley, 99 F. 437 (C.C.D.Wash.1900); United States v. Higgins, 110 F. 609 (C.C.D. Mont.1901). The Government has directed us to no evidence with which to i......
-
State v. Phelps
...in making the allotment cannot "deprive him of his birthright," and consequently cannot deprive the state court of jurisdiction. United States v. Hadley, supra; States v. Logan (C. C.) 105 F. 240. On the other hand, as indicated by the cited cases, jurisdiction depends further upon the pers......
-
Farrell v. United States
... ... abandoned by the father, and is nurtured and reared by the ... Indian mother in the tribal relation, and is recognized by ... [110 F. 945] ... tribe as a member of it, follows the status of the mother, ... and becomes a member of the Indian tribe. U.S. v. Hadley ... (C.C.) 99 F. 437, 438. The Indians have usually ... recognized such children as members of their tribes, and have ... in their treaties jealously protected their rights either as ... Indians, half-breeds, or mixed bloods, and the acts of ... congress have often placed them on the same ... ...
-
Long's Estate, In re
...assertion plaintiff cites Keith v. U. S., 8 Okl. 446, 58 P. 507; Halbert v. U. S. 283 U.S. 753, 51 S.Ct. 615, 75 L.Ed. 1389, and U. S. v. Hadley, C.C., 99 F. 437. But in these cases entirely different questions were presented than those involved in the instant case. In the Keith case the qu......