The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1857-09-05

NELSON-TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN STARKEY-
DISCHARGE OF THREE OF THE PRISONERS.
The return of the writ of Habeas Corpus
issued by Judge Nelson, of the Supreme Court
of Minnesota, commanding Capt. Starkey to
bring before him the bodies of certain Chip
pewa Indians in his custody, was made yes
terday morning at 10 o'clock. The Indians,
four in number, were taken to the Chambers
of the Judge; the fifth Indian is yet in St.
Joseph's Hospital, confined by his wounds
NJ. E. Ames, Esq, appeared on behalf of the
Indians, and Attorney General Emmett, and
Jas. Smith, Esq, for the REALTORS.
When the case was ready to progress, Mr.
Ames arose and said he desired to place the
whole matter in its true light before the
Court and the pnblic. Misapprehension ex
listed in regard to the case.
Major Cullen had applied to him Oh Mon
day, as counsel to see that the Indians had a
fair trial. He then explained how the mat
ter had been deferred, for two or three days,
by the custodians of the Chippewas assuring
him that complaint was about to be made
out in due form against the Indians, but no.
thing had been done until yesterday (Wednss-
day. when the writ was served on Capt.
Starkey.
They deemed it duty to the public, he
said, to bring them before the Court to see
whether they were really guilty of crime or
not. [ find on examining the answer brought
by the Attorney General, that there is not a
single charge OR accusation embodied in any
manner that gives any one cause to hold these
captives. Although imprisoned for five days,
no accusation on oath according to law had
been preferred against them.
I object to the insufiiciency of the return,
on the grounds that it shows no legal cause
for their being held. l therefore move their
discharge.
Ipresent a demurrer on account Of the
insufficicncy of the return. Your Honor
will observe that Capt. Starkey predcatcs
the arrest on an order from Gov. Medary.-
1t is submitted that that order was not in
tended to justify or cause the company to
use forcible means in the arrest of the Indi-
ans, or to slaughter them.
The powers of the Governor to enforce
offensive operations was commented on
Admitting that the order, he said, justified
them in what they had already done, it az
forded no grounds whatever for holding
them for five days as they had done,
without show of authority, no one having
made complaint against them. He COM
mented on the expressed intention of Capt.
S. to take tie prisoners to Chisago county to
be tried. But he merely intends; he might
keep them still in custody, still Intending to
hand them over. To deliver these captives
again to them would be an act of unparalel-
led despotism.
lie conceded that the company acted in
good faith in the matter, though he placed
no credit in their assertion that the captivee
would be endangered by popular indignation
if released now.
He submitted
First, These Chippewas are entitled to the
same protection of Habeas Corpus that would
govern if they were white citizens of the
United States,
Second, They cannot he held without an
accusation on oath or affirmation of some
party.
Third, There is nothing in this answer
embodying charge against them.
Fourth, AS to whether they were legally
arrested or not, Of their committing depreda-
lions has nothing to do with this The only
justification set forth is the homicide of Mr..
Donnelly. If this had b,en charged, we
would waive all objections, but they have
not done so, and there is no shadow of rea-
son for this Court to detain them. They
should be awarded to civil authority.
It is upon these grounds we sue for their
discharge on Habeas Corpus.
Mr.. SMITH. The position of the counsel
for the Chippewas, is demurrer to the re-.
turn. We will examine and see whether it
shows such state of facts as authorizes the
detention of the Indians. A person having
another in custody, appearing to answer a
writ Of Habeas Corpus, has merely to state
the time, place and cause of capture whereby
he holds him. The facts of the return were
admitted by Mr.. Ames.
| Mr.. S. then went into an analysis of the
return Of the writ. He spoke of the orders
received by Capt. Starkey, and the causes Of
the arrest. 1t is claimed, be said, that they
had no authority to use force but they