United States v. Miller

• Decision Date: 11 January 1901
• Docket Number: 952,953.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. MILLER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

105 F. 944

UNITED STATES v. MILLER.

Nos. 952, 953.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

January 11, 1901

Sardis Summerfield, U.S. Atty.

J Poujade, for defendant.

HAWLEY District Judge (orally).

The defendant is a Modoc Indian. He was indicted by the grand jury of the district of Nevada for the crime of disposing of intoxicating liquor to a Piute Indian contrary to the provisions of the statute in such case made and provided. Rev. St. Sec. 2139, as amended July 23, 1892 (27 Stat. 260) amended January 30, 1897 (29 Stat. 506). The defendant was placed on trial before a jury. The bottom facts of this case established by the evidence are that, in the evening of the day named in the indictment, some Piute Indians assembled at the cabin where the defendant resided, and, while engaged in a game of cards, asked the defendant if he could get them some whisky. He replied that he thought he could; that he knew a party from whom he could get liquor, and thought he could find him. That four Piute Indians then put up 25 cents each, and gave the money to the defendant to enable him to buy the whisky. That defendant then left the cabin, and was gone about one hour, and returned with a bottle of whisky. That he procured a small glass, filled it with the contents of the bottle, and himself gave to each of the four Piute Indians who gave him the money the glass thus filled with whisky. That each of these Indians drank the contents thereof and became intoxicated. The defendant, in his testimony stated that he took the money and went around town, trying to find the person who he thought would procure the liquor for him; that he could not find him; that he then went to the railroad depot, and walked along the railroad track and met a 'hobo'; that, after some talk appropriate to the occasion, he prevailed upon the stranger to procure a bottle of whisky for him; that he gave him $1, and promised to reward him with the sum of 25 cents for his services; that after he got the bottle of whisky he paid, of his own money 25 cents, as promised; that he then returned to the cabin, and, hearing a number of voices therein, he secreted the whisky outside of the cabin and went in to ascertain who were there, and, finding none but Indians present, he went outside, got the whisky, brought it in, and disposed of it as above stated; that the other Indians who had come in also helped to deplete the bottle. It further appeared that on the night in question James Shaw, a reliable and intelligent Indian of the Piute tribe, a member of the Indian police of the Pyramid reservation, intrusted and charged with the duty of quelling all disturbances among the tribe, and specially instructed by the officers of the reservation to ascertain and cause the arrest of every person who disposes of liquor to Indians, on his return from a public entertainment given to the school children, to which he had been invited, was attracted by loud and boisterous noises which he heard in the cabin of the defendant; that in the performance of his duties, he went into the cabin, and at once ascertained that the Indians were all drunk. Thereafter the witness Shaw, upon inquiry, ascertained all the facts, which, at his instigation, led to the arrest of the defendant.

At the close of the evidence the defendant moved the court to be discharged upon the following grounds: That he was under a disability, and did not have the capacity to commit the crime charged in the indictment; that he is an Indian, and if the offense charged was committed by him, and none but Indians were affected by it, this court has no jurisdiction to punish him; that the policy of the laws of the United States relating to Indians has ever been, and is, to confine the jurisdiction of all crimes committed by an Indian upon Indians to the Indian authorities; and that this jurisdiction is extended not only to cases in which Indians have provided for the punishment of crimes and offenses among themselves, but to cases in which no punishment has been provided for by them. The following authorities are cited in support of his motion: U.S. v. Barnaby (C.C.) 51 F. 20; Ex parte Mayfield, 141 U.S. 107, 115, 11 Sup.Ct. 939, 35 L.Ed. 635; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 3 Sup.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030; Alberty v. U.S., 162 U.S. 499, 16 Sup.Ct. 864, 40 L.Ed. 1051. These authorities, and others of like character, in my opinion, have no application to this case, and need not be reviewed. They refer to an entirely different class of cases from the one in hand.

The statute under which the defendant was indicted reads as follows:

'Any person who shall sell, give away, dispose of * * * any malt, spirituous or vinous liquor * * * which produces intoxication * * * to any Indian, a ward of the government under charge of any Indian superintendent or agent, * * * shall be punished by imprisonment. * * * '

Under the treaties and laws of the United States the Piute and Shoshone Indians living in their tribal relations are the wards of the government of the United States, and as such are necessarily under the charge of 'an Indian superintendent or agent,' within the meaning of these words as used in the statute. The fact that the Indian to whom the liquor was given was off the Indian reservation at the time he received the liquor constitutes no defense or excuse whatever. U.S. v. Earl (C.C.) 17 F. 75, 77; U.S. v. Hurshman (D.C.) 53 F. 543, 544; U.S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 415, 18 L.Ed. 182. In the case last cited the court said:

'The policy of the act is the protection of those Indians who are, by treaty or otherwise, under the pupilage of the government, from the debasing influence of the use of spirits; and it is not easy to perceive why that policy should not require their preservation from this, to them, destructive poison, when they are outside of a reservation as well as within it. The evil effects are the same in both cases.'

The strict enforcement of this law is essential not only for the protection of the Indians who are the wards of the government, but also as a means of safety and security to the citizens of this state who are placed in fear when the Indians become intoxicated. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Indians living in their tribal relations in this state are, as a general rule, a harmless and inoffensive people, friendly disposed towards the government and peaceable in their relations with the citizens of the state. But when they procure intoxicating liquors of any kind they drink to excess, their ordinary nature and disposition is at once perverted, and their inclination is to assault and injure every one, without regard to race or color, who comes within their path. They become dangerous not only to themselves, but to society at large, and are the special terror of the women and children living in the community where the crime mentioned in the act is committed. There is absolutely nothing in the policy of the act which supports in any manner the view contended for by counsel, that the defendant is under any disability to commit the crime because he is an Indian. On the other hand, the entire policy of the act is in favor of holding the defendant amenable to the...