Westmoreland v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 January 1895 |
| Docket Number | No. 765,765 |
| Parties | WESTMORELAND v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On June 16, 1894, the plaintiff in error was adjudged guilty of the crime of murder by the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Texas, and sentenced to be hanged. This sentence has been brought to this court for review by writ of error. The record contains only the indictment, the judgment, and the motion in arrest thereof. The indictment charges:
'That one Thomas Westmoreland, a white person, and not an Indian, nor a citizen of the Indian Territory, late of Pickens county, Chickasaw Nation, Indian Territory, in the district and circuit aforesaid, on the fifteenth day of June in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and ninety-three, in Pickens county, in the Chickasaw Nation, in the Indian Territory, the same being annexed to and constituting a part of the said Fifth circuit, and annexed to and constituting a part of the Eastern district of Texas for judicial purposes, and being within the jurisdiction of this court, did unlawfully, fraudulently, and feloniously, and with his malice aforethought, and with certain drugs and poisons, to wit, strychnine and certain poisons to the grand jurors unknown, then and there given and administered by the said Thomas Westmoreland to one Robert Green with the unlawful and felonious intent of the said Thomas Westmoreland then and there to take the life of him, the said Robert Green.
'And he, the said Thomas Westmoreland, did then and there, by administering the said poison, as aforesaid, unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously poison him, the said Robert Green, from the effects of which said poison he, the said Robert Green, did languish, and languishing did then and there die, on the fifteenth day of June, A. D. eighteen hundred and ninety-three, and within a year and a day from said date.
'And the said grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do say that upon the day aforesaid, at the place aforesaid, with said poison aforesaid, used as aforesaid, and in the manner aforesaid, the said Thomas Westmoreland did unlawfully, feloniously, and with his malice aforethought, kill and murder the said Robert Green, the said Thomas Westmoreland and he, the said Robert Green, being then and there white persons, and not Indians, nor citizens of the Indian Territory, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.'
C. L. Herbert and Robert H. West, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is not denied that the circuit court for the Eastern district of Texas has jurisdiction over offenses against the laws of the United States committed in that portion of the Indian Territory described in the indictment (25 Stat. 786, §§ 17, 18); but it is insisted that by section 2146, Rev. St., such jurisdiction does not 'extend to crimes committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian, nor to any Indian committing any offense in the Indian country who has been punished by the local law of the tribe, or to any case where, by treaty stipulations, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is or may be secured to the Indian tribes respectively,' and that no indictment can be held sufficient which does not expressly negative the exceptions contained in this section. See, also 26 Stat. 94, § 30; In re...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
... ... also, Canty v. State, 238 Ala. 384, 191 So. 260 ... In ... Westmoreland v. United States, 155 U.S. 545, 15 ... S.Ct. 243, 245, 39 L.Ed. 255, which involved the ... ...
-
U.S. v. Prentiss, 98-2040
...victim must be alleged in the indictment because it is an indispensable element of jurisdiction. See, e.g. Westmoreland v. United States, 155 U.S. 545, 548-49 (1895) (holding that allegations the defendant was a white man and not a citizen of the Indian Territory sufficiently negated the ap......
-
State v. Rufus
...Mayfield, 141 U. S. 107, 11 S. Ct. 939, 35 L. Ed. 635;Smith v. U. S., 151 U. S. 50, 14 S. Ct. 234, 38 L. Ed. 67;Westmoreland v. U. S., 155 U. S. 545, 15 S. Ct. 243, 39 L. Ed. 255. In speaking of the statute as it stood before the act of 1885, Mr. Justice Miller said: ‘It does not interfere ......
-
U.S. v. Hester
...contends that the indictment fails to allege an essential jurisdictional fact, draws some support from Westmoreland v. United States, 155 U.S. 545, 15 S.Ct. 243, 39 L.Ed. 255 (1895). In that case the Supreme Court rejected a similar challenge to an indictment under the predecessor to sectio......
-
American Indian Sovereignty and Naturalization: It's a Race Thing
...ch. 120, 16 Stat. 544, 566; see VINE DELORIA, JR. and RAYMOND DEMALLIE, I DOCUMENTS OF AMERICAN INDIAN DIPLOMACY, 233-48 (1999). 172. 155 U.S. 545 (1895). 173. Id. at 546. 174. Treaty with the Choctaws and Chickasaws, Apr. 28, 1866, art. 38, 14 Stat. 769, 779. 175. Act of May 2, 1890, ch. 1......