Arkansas intelligencer., 1843-04-29
From the Arkansas Gazette.


the District of Arkansas, closed its session on
Monday last. new trial was granted to Rus.
sol, upon the ground that the main testimony q.
Salnst him was given by negro, wbo though
called in the defence, contradicted in express
terms the story which he had once sworn to be.
fore the Grand Jury. Moses, another neg,o who
had been indicted and found guilty of The murder,
ora Cherokee Indian, was discharged upon notion
for the want of jurisdiction, nasm,ch as he was
slave belonging to, and living among The Chero-
KEGS. We give below the opinion of Judge John.
son, upon the application made for his discharge
Alter its delivery, Col. A. Fowler, u. S. District
Attorney, stated that his own views as to the iu-
rlsdlction OF the Court cases of the kind ful
y accorded with those of his Honor: that he had
submitted, in substance, the same opinion in wri
ting, to the Superintendent of the Indian nation
on former occasion, and now only caused this
Indictment to be preferred, in order that the ques
ton might be judicially settled. Thinking that
this opinion would be of interest to our readers in
the west, on account Of the question decided, we.
through the kindness Of Judge Johnson, procured
1t for publication.
,,o,ss Us INDICTMENT FOR MURDER.
This is an indictment aeains, the defendant
Moses, negro man, late of the Choctaw Nation
west OF this State, charging him with the crime a
murder upon Billy Wilson, an Indian of the Det
ware Tribe, at place within the Indian countE.
wes' OF tne state OF Arkansas. Upon his trial Je-
iore 'the jury, (who haVo found him guiItyiby !
'hcir Veraict), 1t was proved that he was the pro-
Perty and slave of Cherokee Indian, an, the
question now presented is, has this Court rsdic.
Ton OF the crime! Its solution depends ,pon
sound construction Of the 25th section ofhn act
OF Congress, entitled 'an act to regulate r,de and
l. J.
servo peace on the frontiers' approved iune 30
1884. ltis in the following words. "ArdIe ii fur.
theT enacted, That so much Of the lawsof the o.
nl!ed States as provides for the punbhment of
crimes committed within any place, within the
soie ana exclusive jurisdiction of the United States
shall be in force in the Indian country: Prorided,
Thai the same shall not extend to- crimes com.
mltted by one Indian against the person or pro-
perty OF another lndan.''
The defendant Moses is negro slave, belong
ing to Cherokee Indian, residing with bis master
IN the Indian couEtry; and the enquiry is whether
he is embraced BY the proviso il the act, declar-
ing that the same shall not extend TO crimes COM
mltted by one Indian against tho person or pro-
perty of another Indian.
1t is material in deciding this question, to take
into view the object and intention of the Legisla-
ture in the passage Of this law, in order to deter
mine to what persons it was applicable. In doing
50, it is abundanty manifest that it was the great
object and design of Congress to preserve peace
and harmony with the Indian Tribes, by the pun.
lshment OF crimes committed by our citizens a.
galnst the Indians, and by the Indians agains,
our citizens; leaving the Indians, by their own
municipal regulations, to punish crimes commit.
ed ny one Indian against another Indian. The
indian rlbes being in some respects independent
nations, have been left by the U. States to lepis
late Tor themselves TO pass laws for their own do.
mestic government, and provide such penal,;es
for crimes as they shall deem expedient.
Who are nmenable 10 the laws which the In.
dian Tribes have right to prescribe! The OBJ.
vious answer to this question is, every member of
tho trlbe whether he be one by birth or adoption,
no matter what color, red white, or black, is nike
subject to the laws Of the tribe. An American
citizen expatria!ing himself from the United States
and joining himself to an Indian Trib,, making
the Indian country his domiciN and permanent
home, subjects himself to the operation Of the laws
of the nation Of which he becomes member,
and may correctly be denominated an Indian.
If he can be rightly punished under the laws of
the tribe. for the murder of an Indian, he cannot
be punishable under tho laws Of the U. States.
This would subject him to two independent juris-
dicsious for the same crime.
ID cannot. think, be reasonably doubted, that
Congress, never intended them to apply to crimes
commit:ed by one member Of the tiibe against a.
mother member Of the tribe, and if this be a cor.