United States v. Ramsey, No. 1061

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSUTHERLAND
Citation46 S.Ct. 559,70 L.Ed. 1039,271 U.S. 467
PartiesUNITED STATES v. RAMSEY et al
Decision Date01 June 1926
Docket NumberNo. 1061

271 U.S. 467
46 S.Ct. 559
70 L.Ed. 1039
UNITED STATES

v.

RAMSEY et al.

No. 1061.
Argued April 22, 1926.
Decided June 1, 1926.

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.

Page 468

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

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

Page 469

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Dupris, No. 78-1575
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 27, 1979
    ...had jurisdiction over Indian allotments whether the allotments are within or outside reservation boundaries. United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 472, 46 S.Ct. 559, 70 L.Ed. 1039 Page 340 (1925); United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 447, 34 S.Ct. 396, 58 L.Ed. 676 (1914). At the time t......
  • U.S. v. Prentiss, No. 98-2040
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • February 24, 2000
    ...Lands: A Journey Through A Jurisdictional Maze, 18 Ariz. L. Rev. 503, 525 n.102 (1976) (explaining the holding of United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 469 (1926)). In Ramsey, two white men were charged with murdering an Osage Indian within Indian country. See 271 U.S. at 468. Addressing t......
  • Pittsburg & Midway Coal Min. Co. v. Watchman, No. 94-2060
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • April 19, 1995
    ...individual Indian allotments held in trust by the United States were subject to federal jurisdiction. See also United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 471-72, 46 S.Ct. 559, 560, 70 L.Ed. 1039 (1926). Subsequently, courts have consistently held individual Indian allotments fall within the def......
  • Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie Cnty. v. Chaudhuri, No. 11-5171
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 15, 2015
    ...and restricted fee lands, observing that "[i]n practical effect, the control of Congress . . . is the same." United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 471 (1926). Congress has also treated trust lands and restricted fee lands as equally subject to a number of federal controls. See, e.g., 25 U.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
65 cases
  • U.S. v. Dupris, No. 78-1575
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 27, 1979
    ...had jurisdiction over Indian allotments whether the allotments are within or outside reservation boundaries. United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 472, 46 S.Ct. 559, 70 L.Ed. 1039 Page 340 (1925); United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 447, 34 S.Ct. 396, 58 L.Ed. 676 (1914). At the time t......
  • U.S. v. Prentiss, No. 98-2040
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • February 24, 2000
    ...Lands: A Journey Through A Jurisdictional Maze, 18 Ariz. L. Rev. 503, 525 n.102 (1976) (explaining the holding of United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 469 (1926)). In Ramsey, two white men were charged with murdering an Osage Indian within Indian country. See 271 U.S. at 468. Addressing t......
  • Pittsburg & Midway Coal Min. Co. v. Watchman, No. 94-2060
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • April 19, 1995
    ...individual Indian allotments held in trust by the United States were subject to federal jurisdiction. See also United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 471-72, 46 S.Ct. 559, 560, 70 L.Ed. 1039 (1926). Subsequently, courts have consistently held individual Indian allotments fall within the def......
  • Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie Cnty. v. Chaudhuri, No. 11-5171
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 15, 2015
    ...and restricted fee lands, observing that "[i]n practical effect, the control of Congress . . . is the same." United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 471 (1926). Congress has also treated trust lands and restricted fee lands as equally subject to a number of federal controls. See, e.g., 25 U.......
  • 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