United States v. Ramsey, 1061
Decision Date | 01 June 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 1061,1061 |
Citation | United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 46 S.Ct. 559, 70 L.Ed. 1039 (1926) |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. RAMSEY et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. William D. Mitchell, Sol.Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Messrs. Wm. S. Hamilton, of Pawhuska, Okl., and S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants in error.
The defendants in error, two white men, were charged, by an indictment returned in the court below, with the murder of one Henry Roan, a full-blood Osage Indian and a legal member of the Osage Tribe, committed 'in Osage county, in said district, in the Indian country, and in and upon the reservation theretofore and then established by law of the United States for the Osage Tribe of Indians, on and in a certain tract of land therein which was then and there under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and comprised a restricted surplus allotment, theretofore made under and according to the Act of Congress approved June 28, 1906, * * * the title to which said allotment * * * was held in trust by the United States and was inalienable' by the allottee, who had never had issued to her a certificate of competency authorizing her to sell the allotment.The indictment is drawn under section 2145, Rev. St. (Comp. St. § 4148), which extends the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of crimes committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, to the Indian country, with certain exceptions not material here.The court below sustained a demurrer to this indictment upon the ground that the allotment described in the indictment as the locus of the crime was not Indian country within the meaning of section 2145.Thereupon, the construction of the statute upon which the indictment is drawn being involved, the case was brought here on writ of error under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564,34 Stat. 1246(Comp. St. § 1704).
The authority of the United States under section 2145 to punish crimes occurring within the state of Oklahoma, not committed by or against Indians, was ended by the grant of statehood.United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621, 624, 26 L. Ed. 869;Draper v. United States, 164 U. S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L. Ed. 419.But authority in respect of crimes committed by or against Indians continued after the admission of the state as it was before (Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243, 271, 33 S. Ct. 449, 57 L. Ed. 820, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 710), in virtue of the long-settled rule that such Indians are wards of the nation, in respect of whom there is devolved upon the federal government 'the duty of protection and with the power'(United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 384, 6 S. Ct. 1109, 30 L. Ed. 228).The guardianship of the United States over the Osage Indians has not been abandoned; they are still the wards of the nation (United States v. Osage County, 251 U. S. 128, 133, 40 S. Ct. 100, 64 L. Ed. 184;United States v. Nice, 241 U. S. 591, 598, 36 S. Ct. 696, 60 L. Ed. 1192); and it rests with Congress alone to determine when that relationship shall cease (Matter of Heff, 197 U. S. 488, 499, 25 S. Ct. 506, 49 L. Ed. 848;United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, 290, 30 S. Ct. 93, 54 L. Ed. 195).
The sole question for our determination, therefore, is whether the place of the crime is Indian country within the meaning of section 2145.The place is a tract of land constituting an Indian allotment, carved out of the Osage Indian reservation and conveyed in fee to the allottee named in the indictment, subject to a restriction against alienation for a period of 25 years.That period has not elapsed, nor has the allottee ever received a certificate of competency authorizing her to sell.As pointed out in Unitted States v. Bowling, 256 U. S. 484, 486, 41 S. Ct. 561, 65 L. Ed. 1054, there are two modes by which Indians are prevented from improvidently disposing of their allotments.One is by means of a certificate, called a trust patent, by the terms of which the government holds the land for a period of years in trust for the allottee with an agreement to convey at the end of the trust period.The other mode is to issue a patent conveying to the allottee the land in fee, but prohibiting its alienation for a stated period.Both have the same effect, so far as the power of alienation is concerned, but one is commonly called...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Burnett
...government." United States v. Pelican, supra, 232 U.S. at 449, 34 S.Ct. at 399. The same considerations applied to the allotted lands, which remained lands set apart for the Indians under governmental care. In
United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 46 S.Ct. 559, 70 L.Ed. 1039 (1926), the Pelican case was extended to restricted Osage Indian allotments. The Court noted that the trust allotment and the restricted allotment were but alternative means for preventing improvident dispositionthe sole use and benefit of the allottee and his heirs throughout the original or any extended period of restriction.' In practical effect, the control of Congress, until the expiration of the trust or the restricted period, is the same. United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. at 471, 46 S.Ct. at 560. We regard Ramsey and Pelican as dispositive of the status of the lands at issue under § 1151(c). The State's suggestion that Ramsey misapplied Pelican due to differences in the trust... -
Clanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona 8212 834
...now before us. 4 See also Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 66 S.Ct. 778, 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946); United States v. Chavez, 290 U.S. 357, 54 S.Ct. 217, 78 L.Ed. 360 (1933);
United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 46 S.Ct. 559, 70 L.Ed. 1039 (1926). 5 The federal-instrumentality doctrine does not prohibit state taxation of individuals deriving their income from federal sources. See Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 59 S.Ct. 595, 7 L.Ed.2d... -
Davis v. United States
...Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, 284, 30 S. Ct. 93, 54 L. Ed. 195; United States v. Pelican, 232 U. S. 442, 34 S. Ct. 396, 58 L. Ed. 676; Apapas v. United States, 233 U. S. 587, 590, 34 S. Ct. 704, 58 L. Ed. 1104;
United States v. Ramsey, 271 U. S. 467, 46 S. Ct. 559, 70 L. Ed. 1039. The assignment of error principally relied upon is that the court admitted in evidence the appellant's confession. The appellant had stated to several persons that he had killed Walker in... -
Williams v. United States
...S.Ct. 49, 59 L.Ed. 207. 3 In re Wilson, 140 U.S. 575, 11 S.Ct. 870, 35 L.Ed. 513; Pickett v. United States, 216 U.S. 456, 30 S.Ct. 265, 54 L. Ed. 566; Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 33 S.Ct. 449, 57 L.Ed. 820, Ann.Cas.1913E, 710;
United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 46 S.Ct. 559, 70 L.Ed. 1039. 4 As shown above, these provisions apply, not only to the places described in § 272 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 451, but also to Indian 5 The State of Arizona...
-
COMPATIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY WITH SELF-DETERMINATION OF INDIAN TRIBES: REFLECTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
...substantially from tribal self-government, just as federal pre-emption of state criminal jurisdiction would trench on important state interests." 435 U.S. 313, 332 (1978). [99] .25 U.S.C. § 177; United States v. Ramsey,
271 U.S. 467, 470-471 (1926); United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432 (1926); United States v. Bowling, 256 U.S. 484, 486-89 (1921). [100] .E.g., 25 U.S.C. §§ 415 et seq. (surface leases of Indian trust and restricted... -
CHAPTER 11 PITFALLS AND POSSIBILITIES: UNDERSTANDING TAX ISSUES IMPACTING DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY
...opposite, tribes would be granted taxation authority over all lands covered by old silent leases no matter the land status. [22] See, Plains Commerce, 554 U.S. 316. [23] Id. [24] Merrion, 455 U.S. at 137. [25] Id. [26] See,
271 U.S. 467(1928) (holding that a particular Osage allotment was Indian country because it was held in a restricted status). [27] This proposition may be under attack, however, following the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal's recent decision in... -
Surviving Castro-huerta: the Historical Perseverance of the Basic Policy of Worcester v. Georgia Protecting Tribal Autonomy, Notwithstanding One Supreme Court Opinion's Errant Narrative to the Contrary
...'States' rights' principle does not apply to the construction of federal instruments specially affirming and safeguarding tribal property interest in lands within the boundaries of Indian reservations."). 394. United States v. Ramsey,
271 U.S. 467, 468 (1926) (emphasis added) (citing Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 271 (1913)).395. See id. at 470 ("The sole question for our determination, therefore, is whether the place of the crime is Indian country within the meaningsupra notes 269-301 and accompanying text (discussing Donnelly); cf. McClanahan v. Ariz. St. Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164, 169 & n.4 (1973) (quoting Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 561 (1832), and citing, inter alia, Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467) (referring to Ramsey as a case dealing with "a State's efforts to extend criminal jurisdiction" into Indian country that exemplified Worcester's "rationale" that " '[t]he whole intercourse between the United States and [Indian nations],accompanying text (discussing Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (1913); United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913); United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442 (1914); United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467(1926); United States v. Chavez, 290 U.S. 357 (1933); Rice v. Olson, 324 U.S. 786 (1945); New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496 (1946); Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711 (1946)).184. Oklahoma...