United States v. Kiya
| Decision Date | 20 November 1903 |
| Citation | 126 F. 879 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. KIYA. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota |
P Rourke and Edward Engerud, for plaintiff.
A. T Cole, for defendant.
The indictment in this action charges the defendant with having committed, upon the Devils Lake Indian Reservation, the crime of rape upon the person of an Indian girl residing upon said reservation. It appears from the plea interposed by the defendant to the indictment, and the answer thereto, that both the defendant and the Indian girl upon whose person the crime is charged to have been committed are full-blood Indians, residing upon the Devils Lake Indian Reservation under the charge of F. O. Getchell, the Indian agent of said reservation, and t at neither of them has severed the tribal relations. It further appears in like manner that they were at the time the offense is charged to have been committed and have been since the year 1893, residing upon lands allotted to each of them under and by virtue of the act of Congress approved February 8, 1887 (24 Stat. 388, c. 119), entitled 'An act to provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians,' etc. It also appears in the pleadings that the defendant has been regularly held and bound over to appear and answer in the district court of the county of Ramsey and state of North Dakota at the November term, 1903, for the same offense which is charged in the indictment in this action.
Upon the foregoing facts, it is claimed by the defendant that he has not committed any offense against the laws of the United States, but that the acts charged, if the same were committed, are a violation of the laws of the state of North Dakota only; and, second, that this court has no jurisdiction to try the defendant for said offense, but that he is subject solely to the jurisdiction of the state courts.
The proper disposition of the questions thus raised involves a construction of the act of February 8, 1887, above referred to. This act provides, in substance, for an allotment of lands in severalty to Indians residing upon Indian reservations, the title to such lands to be held in trust by the government for a term of 25 years, or such longer period as the president of the United States may deem best, and at the expiration of such period an absolute title to pass to the allottee. Section 5 (24 Stat. 389) provides that as soon as the allotments have been made and approved a patent shall issue in the name of the allottee, which shall declare that the United States will hold the land that is allotted for the period of 25 years in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall be made. It further provides that at the expiration of this period, or such extension thereof as the President shall deem for the best interest of the Indian, an absolute conveyance by patent shall be made by the government to the allottee. Section 6 of the act contains the following language: 'That upon the completion of such allotments and the patenting of the lands to said allottees, each and every member of the respective bands or tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the state or territory in which they may reside. ' Under this provision it is urged by the defendant that he is subject, for the offense charged in the indictment, solely to the laws and courts of the state of North Dakota. Counsel for the government contends that until the final patent is issued the Indians are under the federal law.
After a somewhat careful consideration of the statutes, I am led to the conclusion that the 'patenting' referred to in section 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tooisgah v. United States
...did not for that reason disestablish the reservation of which they were a part, or exclude the allotments from it. United States v. Kiya, D.C., 126 F. 879. Once the reservation is established "all tracts included within it remain a part of the reservation until separated therefrom by Congre......
-
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah
...v. United States, 133 F.2d 292 (8th Cir. 1943); United States v. Frank Black Spotted Horse, 282 F. 349 (D.S.D.1922); United States v. Kiya, 126 F. 879, 882 (D.N.D.1903); Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribe v. Namen, No. 2343, et al. (D.Mont. Filed Sept. 20, 33 See e. g., 1 American Indian ......
-
State v. Lott
...are subject to the criminal laws of the state, notwithstanding the fact that the crime was committed upon the reservation. (United States v. Kiya, 126 F. 879.) By first sentence of sec. 6 of the act of February 8, 1887, Indian allottees are expressly made liable to the criminal jurisdiction......
-
State v. Phelps
...to crime. United States v. Flynn, F. Cas. No. 15,124; Hallowell v. United States, 221 U.S. 317, 31 S.Ct. 587, 55 L.Ed. 750; United States v. Kiya (D. C.) 126 F. 879; States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278, 30 S.Ct. 93, 54 L.Ed. 195; United States v. Sutton, 215 U.S. 291, 30 S.Ct. 116, 54 L.Ed. 2......