United States v. Martin
Decision Date | 03 February 1883 |
Citation | 14 F. 817 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. MARTIN. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
James F. Watson, for the United States.
H. Y Thompson, for defendant.
DEADY D.J.
On January 9, 1883, an information was filed in this court by the district attorney, charging the defendant with a violation of section 5398 of the Revised Statutes, which enacts:
'Every person who knowingly and willfully obstructs, resists, or opposes any officer of the United States in serving or attempting to serve or execute any mesne process or warrant, or any rule or order of any court of the United States, or any other legal or judicial writ or process, or assaults, beats, or wounds any officer or other person duly authorized, in serving or executing any writ, rule order process, or warrant, shall be imprisoned not more than 12 months, and fined not more than $300.'
The information contains two counts.
The first one alleges that on December 18, 1882, in this district, two indians, namely, Peteus and Capsawalla, being then and there under the charge of an Indian agent, were duly arrested by the marshal of this district upon a warrant duly issued by a commissioner of the circuit court for this district, upon a charge of murder committed by said Indians, in killing one--Mulhenen, a white man, upon the Umatilla Indian reservation in this district, and were by the order of said commissioner duly committed to the jail of Umatilla county, for examination before him on said charge, the defendant being then and there the keeper of said jail; and that afterwards, on December 19th, said commissioner duly made and delivered to the deputy of said marshal an order commanding him to bring said Indians before him for examination upon the charge aforesaid, who then and there attempted to execute the same, but was prevented from so doing by the defendant, who knowingly and willfully refused to deliver said Indians to said deputy, and by force and violence prevented the latter from executing said order.
The second count alleges that the defendant obstructed an officer in the execution of process in the case of two other Indians, namely, Ah Hoot and Weet Snoot, charged before said commissioner on December 7, 1882, with the killing of said-- Mulhenen on said reservation, on which day they were duly committed by the order of said commissioner to the custody of P. McDowell, the keeper of the town jail at Pendelton, in said county, for examination on said charge; and that on December 18th the defendant took said Indians from the custody of said jailer of Pendelton, they being then and there in the custody of the latter under the order of the said commissioner.
Upon the filing of the information a warrant issued, upon which the defendant was arrested and held to bail in the sum of $1,000.
The defendant demurs to the information, and for cause alleges substantially that 'the courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to try the Indians named in the information for the crime with which they are charged,' and therefore the order or process which the officer was attempting to execute was void and not within the purview of the statute.
The question made by this demurrer was considered and decided by this court in U.S. v. Bridleman, 7 Sawy. 243, (S.C. 7 F. 894)-- an information charging a white man with stealing from an Indian on this same reservation.
In that case it was held that this court has jurisdiction of a crime committed on the Umatilla reservation by a white man upon the person or property of an Indian, and vice versa, provided the crime is defined by a law of the United States directly applicable to the Indian country, or made so by sections 2145, 2146, of the Revised Statutes, which enact:
The punishment of the crime of murder, committed in a place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, is provided for in section 5339 of the Revised Statutes, which enacts:
'Every person who commits murder within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, * * * shall suffer death.'
This section is made applicable to the Indian country by section 2145 of the Revised Statutes, supra; and if the Umatilla reservation is 'Indian country,' within the purview of the statute, the United States circuit court for this district has jurisdiction to try these Indians upon this charge of murder.
That the reservation is Indian country was held in U.S. v. Bridleman, supra. In that case the origin of this reservation, and the power of congress to regulate intercourse with the Indian tribes, was stated as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Taylor
...27 to 32, inclusive; Navigable Waters, p. 12, vol. 9, F. S. A., and notes; Forty-Three Gallons Cognac Brandy (C. C.) 11 F. 47; U. S. v. Martin (D. C.) 14 F. 817; 14 Op. Attys. Gen. 290; United States v. Leathers, 26 Fed. Cas. 897, No. 15,581; United States v. Certain Property (1871) 1 Ariz.......
-
Robinson v. Wolff
...did by enacting § 1153, it did not choose to do so. See Hollister v. United States, 145 F. 773 (C.A. 8th Cir. 1906); United States v. Martin, 14 F. 817 (U.S.D.C.Or.1883). Rather, only a portion of the congressional power was asserted; ten listed crimes committed by Indians in Indian country......
-
Goodson v. United States
...several acts of congress relating to such territory, is Indian country. (Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204; U. S. v. Bridleman, 7 F. 894; U. S. v. Martin, 14 F. 817; U. S. v. Leathers, 6 Sawy. 17, 26 F. Cas. 897, F. Cas. No. 15,581; Forty-Three Gallons of Cognac Brandy, 11 F. 47; In re Wilson, 14......
-
United States v. Sutton
... ... construed. Allotted land, coupled with citizenship of the ... allottee, can no longer be deemed Indian country within the ... meaning of that term as used by Congress and construed by the ... courts. Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 3 Sup.Ct. 396, 27 ... L.Ed. 1030; United States v. Martin (D.C.) 14 F ... 817; Forty-three Gallons of Cognac Brandy (C.C.) 11 F. 47 ... Again, the law relates solely to the good order, quietude, ... and peace of the community. The legislation was intended to ... prevent disorderly conduct, and to restrain the Indians from ... excesses. The ... ...