United States v. La Plant

CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
Citation200 F. 92
Decision Date06 May 1911
PartiesUNITED STATES v. LA PLANT.

200 F. 92

UNITED STATES
v.
LA PLANT.

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Northern Division.

May 6, 1911


[200 F. 93]

E. E. Wagner, U.S. Atty., of Mitchell, S.D., for the United States.

H. G. Fuller, of Milbank, S.D., and P. C. Morrison, of Mobridge, S.D., for defendant.

WILLARD, District Judge.

This case stands upon a demurrer to the indictment. The first ground stated in the demurrer is that the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense. The second ground is that the court has no jurisdiction of the offense. Only the second ground will be considered.

The case was argued upon the assumption, by counsel, that the defendant, Orvilla La Plant, and the person killed, George Martin, were both white persons. Upon this assumption the jurisdiction of this court cannot be based upon Act March 3, 1885, c. 341, 23 Statutes at Large, 362, 385, giving jurisdiction to the federal courts of crimes committed on Indian reservations in certain cases. Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 Sup.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419. Even without this assumption, the jurisdiction could not be maintained under that act; for the indictment does not allege that La Plant is an Indian, or that Martin is an Indian.

The jurisdiction must rest upon Act Feb. 2, 1903, c. 351, 32 Stat. 793, carried forward into the Criminal Code, where it appears as section 329. This section provides, in part, as follows:

'The Circuit and District Courts of the United States for the district of South Dakota shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all actions and proceedings in which any person shall be charged with the crime of murder manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous weapon, arson, burglary, or larceny committed within the limits of any Indian reservation within the state of South Dakota.'

It has been suggested that this act refers to reservations as they existed when the act was passed in 1903, and that, the place where the offense in this case was committed being within the Cheyenne River reservation as it then existed, the court has jurisdiction. That contention, however, cannot be sustained, in view of what was said by the Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit with reference to this act in Hollister v. United States, 145 F. 773, 777, 76 C.C.A. 337, 341. It is there said:

'The act of February 2, 1903, ex vi termini became inoperative so far as any particular reservation was concerned upon the extinguishment of the Indian title. Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204, 208 (24 L.Ed. 471); Buster v. Wright, 135 F. 947, 952 (68 C.C.A. 505.)'

The question, therefore, is whether or not on the 20th day of March, 1911, when this offense was committed, the place where it was committed was within an Indian reservation. That place, according to the indictment, was included in the land opened to settlement by Act May 29, 1908, c. 218, 35 Statutes at Large, 460. It is claimed by the United States Attorney that that act did not diminish the reservation, so as to exclude the land therein referred to. In section 2 of the act, however, is found the following proviso:

'Provided, that prior to the said proclamation the Secretary of the Interior, in his discretion, may permit Indians who have an allotment within
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • United States ex rel. Miner v. Erickson, No. 19977.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 5, 1970
    ...settlement indicates that the Cheyenne River Reservation was thus "diminished." This language was interpreted in United States v. La Plant, 200 F. 92 (D.C.1911), as extinguishing all Indian title to the land. The South Dakota Supreme Court has relied upon La Plant in a similar holding. Laff......
  • U.S. v. Dupris, No. 78-1575
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 27, 1979
    ...recognized that South Dakota had criminal jurisdiction in the opened area on nonallotted land. See, e. g., United States v. La Plant, 200 F. 92 (D.S.D.1911); Lafferty v. State, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171 (1963); State v. Sauter, 48 S.D. 409, 205 N.W. 25 (1925). At trial Mr. Aberle, the pre......
  • Tooisgah v. United States, No. 4104.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 5, 1950
    ...the organized reservation, and assimilate the Indian tribes as citizens of the state or territory. United States v. LaPlant, D.C., 200 F. 92. The inquiry then is whether these several allotments, into which the reservation was divided, nevertheless remained "within any reservation," or in s......
  • Beardslee v. United States, No. 18565.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 21, 1967
    ...F.2d 93, 97-98 (10 Cir. 1950); Bird in the Ground v. District Court, 239 F.Supp. 981, 983-984 (D.Mont.1965). See United States v. La Plant, 200 F. 92, 93 (D.S.D.1911). The Supreme Court of South Dakota has so ruled repeatedly. State v. Sauter, 48 S.D. 409, 205 N.W. 25, 28 (1925); Applicatio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • United States ex rel. Miner v. Erickson, No. 19977.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 5, 1970
    ...indicates that the Cheyenne River Reservation was thus "diminished." This language was interpreted in United States v. La Plant, 200 F. 92 (D.C.1911), as extinguishing all Indian title to the land. The South Dakota Supreme Court has relied upon La Plant in a similar holding. Laffe......
  • U.S. v. Dupris, No. 78-1575
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 27, 1979
    ...recognized that South Dakota had criminal jurisdiction in the opened area on nonallotted land. See, e. g., United States v. La Plant, 200 F. 92 (D.S.D.1911); Lafferty v. State, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171 (1963); State v. Sauter, 48 S.D. 409, 205 N.W. 25 (1925). At trial Mr. Aberle, the pre......
  • Tooisgah v. United States, No. 4104.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 5, 1950
    ...the organized reservation, and assimilate the Indian tribes as citizens of the state or territory. United States v. LaPlant, D.C., 200 F. 92. The inquiry then is whether these several allotments, into which the reservation was divided, nevertheless remained "within any reservation,&quo......
  • Beardslee v. United States, No. 18565.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 21, 1967
    ...F.2d 93, 97-98 (10 Cir. 1950); Bird in the Ground v. District Court, 239 F.Supp. 981, 983-984 (D.Mont.1965). See United States v. La Plant, 200 F. 92, 93 (D.S.D.1911). The Supreme Court of South Dakota has so ruled repeatedly. State v. Sauter, 48 S.D. 409, 205 N.W. 25, 28 (1925); Applicatio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT