United States v. Juvenile

• Decision Date: 29 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. CR77-30056-01.,CR77-30056-01.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. A JUVENILE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota

453 F. Supp. 1171

UNITED STATES of America v. A JUVENILE.

No. CR77-30056-01.

United States District Court, D. South Dakota.

June 29, 1978.

David V. Vrooman, U. S. Atty., Sioux Falls, S. D.

David L. Bergren, Fort Pierre, S. D.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BOGUE, District Judge.

On June 1, 1977, the United States filed an information charging defendant a juvenile with two violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1153, the Major Crimes Act. Defendant is a juvenile and an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. The United States has charged that defendant committed a burglary and a larceny in the City of Eagle Butte, South Dakota.

Defendant, through his court-appointed attorney, moved this Court to dismiss the information for lack of federal jurisdiction upon the theory that the land upon which the offenses are alleged to have been committed is not "Indian country" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151. Defendant and his counsel thereafter entered into a stipulation of fact with the United States (docket entry 24).

The crucial facts underlying the jurisdictional question are these:

(1) The business establishment in which the crimes of burglary and larceny are alleged to have been committed is located on fee patented land.

(2) This fee patented land lies within the geographical boundaries of the Cheyenne Indian Reservation as established by an Act of Congress on March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 888.

(3) The land where the crimes are alleged to have been committed also lies within the geographical area which was opened to settlement by an Act of Congress on May 29, 1908, 35 Stat. 460, and a Presidential Proclamation of August 19, 1909, 36 Stat. 2500.

Thus, the question presented is whether or not the Act of May 29, 1908, disestablished that portion of the original Cheyenne River Indian Reservation within which defendant is alleged to have committed criminal acts.

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This Court was initially somewhat reluctant to even consider this jurisdictional question in that it appeared at first blush to be a matter that had been decided previously by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. United States ex rel. Condon v. Erickson, 478 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1973). Defendant and his counsel urged, however, that the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975), and Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, et al., 430 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 1361, 51 L.Ed.2d 660 (1977) required a reexamination of the question presented in Erickson, supra. Moreover, the Supreme Court of South Dakota, in the proper exercise of its jurisdictional authority, had held in June of 1977 that the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation was diminished by the Act of 1908; in effect, that Court had reached the result urged by defendant in this case. Stankey v. Waddell, 256 N.W.2d 117 (S.D.1977). This Court, therefore, scheduled a hearing and prepared to consider this jurisdiction question.

Before the hearing was held the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the jurisdictional question presented in United States v. Long Elk, 565 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1977). In a footnote reference to Stankey v. Waddell, the Eighth Circuit noted that the South Dakota Supreme Court had "questioned the continued validity" of the Erickson decision, but the federal appellate court went on to state:

In Erickson, we could find no clear expression of an intent by Congress to diminish the size of the Reservation. Both the language of the Act and its legislative history appeared to us to be equivocal. We find no reason now to question our decision in Erickson. 565 F.2d at 1036, n. 10.

The Court further stated that the results in Rosebud, DeCoteau and Erickson were harmonious.

At this juncture it appeared on the one hand that the holding of Erickson, challenged by defendant, had been explicitly upheld; hence, this Court's inquiry would be unnecessary. On the other hand, the Eighth Circuit's statement: "We find no reason now to question our decision in Erickson" seemed to imply that if there were a good reason, then Erickson would be reconsidered. Thus, this Court again went forward with the inquiry relative to the jurisdictional question.

The legal principles which have guided our inquiry were set out succinctly in the Supreme Court's opinion in Rosebud, 97 S.Ct. at 1363. Because our reasoning must be strictly guided by those principles, we will enumerate them here. In determining whether or not the boundaries of the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation were diminished by the congressional enactment of 1908, we must consider the following:

(1) Congressional intent is controlling.

(2) Doubtful or ambiguous expressions are to be resolved in favor of the Indians.

(3) Opening a reservation for settlement does not necessarily mean that the opened area loses its reservation status.

(4) The canon of construction requiring that doubtful expressions are to be construed in favor of the Indians, does not require a determination that reservation status survives congressionally manifested intent to the contrary.

(5) In order to ascertain congressional intent, a court is obliged to look at the Act in question, the surrounding circumstances and the legislative history.

Additionally, it is clear that an inquiry of this nature "may encompass all materials reasonably pertinent to the legislation. . . ." Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, et al., 521 F.2d 87 (8th Cir. 1975) relying on DeCoteau, supra.

Ordinarily, an inquiry to find the meaning of an act begins with an examination of the text of the act in question. Consideration of legislative history and the circumstances surrounding the passage of the act is necessary only if an examination of the text of the act itself leads to the conclusion that its terms are unclear or that its meaning is ambiguous.

The situation in which this Court finds itself is, however, extraordinary in the following respects. In 1911 the question now presented was raised before a United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota in United States v. LaPlant, 200 F. 92 (1911). Judge Willard, it appears, thought the act was plain on its face, and without resort to legislative history he concluded that the act opening the Cheyenne River Reservation had diminished it in a geographical sense. In 1972, pursuant to an order from the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Judge Nichol, Chief Judge for the District of South Dakota, held an evidentiary hearing to consider the question that had been presented in LaPlant. Judge Nichol concluded that Congress had not by express language changed the 1889 boundaries of the Cheyenne River Reservation although it appeared that the 1908 Act had reduced the boundaries by implication. United States ex rel. Condon v. Erickson, 344 F.Supp. 777 (D.C.1972). On appeal Judge Stephenson, writing for the Eighth Circuit, stated:

We cannot say that the 1908 Act on its face affected the exterior boundaries of the reservation, although it is admittedly a close question. Erickson, 478 F.2d at 687.

Judge Stephenson then went on to state that the meaning of the 1908 Act with respect to reservation boundaries was "not clearly discernible by application of the traditional methods of statutory construction." 478 F.2d at 688. In 1977 the Supreme Court of South Dakota, in light of the United States Supreme Court's opinions in DeCoteau and Rosebud, and after detailed examination of the legislative history, concluded that Congress had clearly manifested an intent to alter the boundaries of the Cheyenne River Reservation by the 1908 Act.

It is clear to this Court that the ultimate resolution of the question presented in this case will not be reached without a careful examination of the historical context in which the 1908 Act was passed. Therefore, we have undertaken to set out what we believe are important aspects of that historical context in a chronological order, and the Act itself will be examined in light of events and statements that preceded it.

Reference will be repeatedly made to a document attached to the memorandum filed by the United States which attachment is entitled: "Jurisdiction on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation: An Analysis of the Causes and Consequences of the Act of May 29, 1908." This document was prepared by Dr. Frederick E. Hoxie, an historian retained by the government. While this Court does not agree with many of the conclusions drawn in that analysis, it appears to constitute the foundation of the government's case; hence, we will try to deal with all of the major arguments contained therein.

II. THE HISTORICAL SETTING

The events of American history that preceded the enactment of so-called "surplus land statutes" that were to affect the lands formerly dominated by the Sioux Nation are well known to everyone involved in this case; hence, the sketch here can be very brief. The boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation were established by treaty in 1868. By acts of Congress this reservation was split up into several smaller reservations. One of these was the Cheyenne River Reservation which was created in 1889. The land not encompassed by these smaller reservations became part of the public domain.

In 1889 congressional policy toward Indian tribes was undergoing significant change. Approximately ten years earlier a national policy of assimilation had been initiated.¹ The General Allotment Act or Dawes Act of 1887² was a result of this change in national policy. The change in policy was likewise reflected in section 12 of 25 Stat. 888 (1889) by which the Cheyenne River Reservation was established. Section 12 provided a means by which the Indians could sell and the United States could buy portions of the remaining reservations for the purpose of making land available for settlers.

In an attempt to carry out this policy of assimilation, the federal government adopted a three-part program.³ The first part of the program was a national system for the...