The Van Buren press., 1867-05-24
a NEW QUESTION.

III iilt llltth NiAAf- blNNiHN 'fWh u VIZ
interesting aud important question wa moot-
ed Friday last. The ease of United States rs.
Goss-bcing an indictment against Goss, who
Is an Indian Cherokee for violation ofthe
Intercourse law by selling whiskcy tn another
Indian. The question was brought up on
motion to qussh the count in the Indictment
charging the selling 20 an Indian. The qucs-
ton was ably argued by T.. 9. BorDrNor. Esq.
in favor of the motion, and denying the juris-
diction Of the Court on Friday, followed In 4
short argument by W. WALLER, ESQ., on the
same side, and was replied To by T.. ID. HAN
the District Attorney. The question was
again argued by &. WILCOX, Esq, on Satur-
day morning in opposition to the jurisdiction
of the Court and in favor of the motion-re-
piled to hy the District Attorney. The points
made by the attorneys who opposed the iuris-
diction of this Court seemed 10 us to be- diff
cult to meet. We do not think the District
Attorney met any Of them successfully. 1t
has never been holden, by the District Judges,
heretofore that this Court had jurisdiction of
cases where Indians alone were parties Ii
was contcnded by the attorneys for Goss,
Messrs. Wilcox and Boudinot that the 10Th
section of the Intercourse law, never was in
tended to apply to Indians who sold or gave
liquor to another Indian, but only applied to
eases in which some citizen of tie 'United
States was concerned. Any other donStruc-
tion of the law would rob the judiciary of the
Indian country of all jurisdiction. In all the
Latter day treaties between the United States
and the enlightened Nations west of us, the
Nations have strcnuOusly insisted upon Il
jurisdiction closely allied to the jurisdiction
with which State Courts are clothed, in regard
to internal affairs and offences committed bv
their own citizens upon the person or prop
erty of another citizen. The L. ). regarding
the Indians in a state of pupilagc, it has been
her policy to cXalt them in the scale of politi-
cal being, and hence we see that every treaty
shows marks of advancement in dignity until
the treaty of lS6G assumes the full dignity ofa
treaty with foreign and ndmdependcnt Nation
1t has also been the policy of the L. S, in
furtherance of the same end TO aid the Indians
therefore ever been ready to lend Il helping
hand. until the Nations have acquired that
stability of government necessary to frame
their own laws for the preservation ofinternal
order and power to enforce them. The Cher
okees, Choctaws, Chckasaws and Creeks, and
more especially the first three, have now ar
rived at that point in political progression, at
which they are fully able to enact and MAIN
tain their own laws and can entirely and fully
preserve peace within tlcirlimits. Hence the
last treaty with these Nations, plainly exhib-
it,, on the part Of the L. s., the fact that the
pupiIagc and guardianship heretofore cXer-
ciscd has about ceased. This position was, to
our minds fully sustained by the arguments
of the counsel for Goss. The only question
to be settled then is, "is this a case in which
Indians are the only parties:" and we think
this question equally well answered by the
gentlemen referred to. The District Court
acquires it jurisdiction from the character Of
the parties, or the subject matter. In ali eases
affecting the Revenue system; the Postal ar
rangements, countcrfciting the national cur
rcncy, etc. the subject matter gives the juris-
diction irrespective ofthc parties. In all cases
ofmurdcr, arson, larceny and the like, the
person must also be considered, because muir
der committed by one Indian upon another
Indian does not present a case for the juris-
diction Of this Court, the jurisdiction being in
the Courts of the Nation to which the person
-, al 81 or, t,,J
If an Indian murders white man who is not
a member of the Indian tribe by birth, adop-
ton or otherwise, he is answcrablc in this
Court, because the offence is not one commit
ertv of another Indian" and the treaties and
laws do not clothc the Indian tribunals with
jurisdiction in such cases, but does confer il
upon this Court Thus we see that an Indian
giving whisksy to another Indian cannot be
guilty ola violation of the Intercourse law
because, it is case in which Indians are alon,
the parties who participate in the act whcl
i. claimed to be Il violation of the law. Til,
L. $. being prosecutor does not change the cast
at all, because sLc is also the prosecutor IN cas-,
of the murder ofa white man BY an Indian
and we have seen that the murder, If commit
ted by one Indian upon another Indian is not
cognizablc before this Court. 1t seems cleal
then that in order to give this Court jurisdic-
tion, the parties concerned must one Of them
be u citizen of the United States. The new
law does not affect this reasoning, because the
Nations that live undera regularly organized
government are in no sense under the charge
of the L. 5. agent or superintendent, and it is
no longer the policy Of the L. $, that they
should be.