Council Bluffs bugle. [volume] (Council Bluffs, Iowa) 1860-1868, 1868-11-26
MTKnmrINc DECHsIsN.
xnAge Drnm mond Decas1eo.
s that the umatea STATES 1h1s~
ariet Geurts aa1se 5mx1or
alctkon ever 4iae Azs~
Clmn Goum&rg.

diam G1umaFy.
Judge Drummond, of the Unitea
States Distrlcs court, rendered des
cision vi great Interest 10 Eife isgzl
fraternity and the general paulle.
This decision ID TO the esAeAss iiaat tue
United SaaEka Ll.alFles Cuarls nave
Jurisdiction oyer tive territories 01lx
already dissricfei. We understand
that tlsis il the dEsl dscissola ever
.reHderaa upon thls tssaltegs II Was
brought oul In the ssase al alilforsi 3.
stickney, who, ils stated In yeSissF
days J0sus4ss, Ilassl sppIieI, aissieT y
writ e AaDsas eorpas, Nr tais das-
charge from saistokly
A0out u year ago SGickIlsF aaQ o
man uWped Hlark were arrested in
gisis city, charged with tins mursiar
m 4 mali uAillel Alsall T.. Bscking,
an the PlAfas, hl the Indian keFfssu.
RI, and Within the Territorial limits
ug Dakota. 1t was alleged that the
homicide was committed at Naslia-
kee sstafion. The parties We're sent
back TO the resritury, BACK IN eus-
tody of tsae United States MARSHAL,
and Saickney under bail bond oa
$4,000 for trial, the distinction rs 20
their manner OF transit being nisale
because Back acknowledged tne
Riiling Of Bieking, bat CANNED thag
lt Was doue In sesf deleaiee, aud
Stickney was only accused oi II, ile
being by the confession exoneraaest.
AT the June term of the court ol
1858 the Indictment fur marier was
quashed, Black went flOm the court
without delay, and Stickney was ln
dicsed for larceny, from the bedy Vi
the deceased, oi twenty pteoss al
gold cuin each OF the value Of ~;
ten treasury notes OF Slu eaeh ten
bank notes of s. each one reyQlyer
and twenty ounces af guid and a
pocket book. The place ot the crime
WAS alleged to be ash.lkee Sta-
ton, in the Indian country, Ia the
Territory OF Dakota, Ia the Second
judicial District of tlle said Terrific
ry OF lakola.p The object OF the
writ WAS IN proclrs discharge.
Th4 paunsel fuf the gelatUr K. II.
Bracket, of Dakota, and III. q. Mil
Ter, OF Chicago, arguel THAT thecourt
| OF the Secual JUDICIAL District had
neither Jurisdiction TO presaut the
indictment, nor TO try for the uifense,
because The court hal no Jurisdiction
in the Indian country, or unceded
and, and more especially, because
in the assignment of territorial limits
to the second judicial District OF the
tertiary i'm which lhe Indictment
was D1nd, the Legislature, 10 which
body the power OF assignment Wis
delegated by Congress, puiy extend
ed 1t tQ the caunties al SaAktQa aud
Jayne, and such cIed territory III
Was not INCLUDED within the limits
Of the other Judicial districts. If,
however, the court thought other
wise, then, il was argued that the
committed, ueled the territory I'll
the United Slatea and made IL part
Of the territory. there being no rps-
ervation as 10 the jurisdiction ol
pending causes the United State.
has lost Jurisdiction, aud the indict.
| nent WAS bad. Jurisdiction was
GAINED under the act OF 1882 for the
court in Missouri
The counsel ior tho Government
Iesse q. Norton argued that the
Uuited States ptssseeses jaFis fiction
"a all iand outside the ota,e, upIl
within territorial limits OF the Uuit-
ed States, aud that the criminal cude
of the United States oI ITy,, as
amended, detl ned the crime and de-
tined It's penalty. Furthermore, that
by tht Organic act OF tile Territory
of Dakota this criminal code was
carried into this Territory, to the
extent gf the nagndaries designated
IN the act, Ehs pFsrSilgIa aetd RFQYId-
Ing that Jurisdiction shaa extend to
ali uncetied lands where theirs is nut
an existing treaty with the Indian
pusssess0rs of the soil, that their nd
shalt not be fn,.luslsd in isrrit0rlai
boundaries. On the question 0f the
jurisdiction in the court af Missouri
District, he argued thai tbs at had
| entire reference To tiIe Intercourse oi
white persons With the indians, gnsi
that there was no references 10 the
condition alleged in this indictmepI
of the commission OF crime upon
white person In the Indian eoaa-
try,
The Court refused the discharge
lie, from the evidence presented,
cuuid Bos clearly ses what th4 Judi.
ciaI dlstFicss were. lhe proa.alna-
tiOn of the Territorial Governor, afsd
the division OF the Territory lnae
fsseEfs.aE s "A N ssk ksxs {ssa a.
as to Eile kirss and Secoud uistrleGs,
80 that he eDud not iadie.a.ly SAY
that this land waa not Included in
one of them. independent of this.
IL should be borne In mind that there
was jurisdiction OF the United
states given by gets of Congress,
with which the Territorial Legisla
tgEe bad 1apght to do. The rirsi
section Of the organic act OF the
rerril0Ey prsscxibsa the boundaries
of the Territory, and the ninth SEA-
tion provides that IL shall be divided
Into three judicial districts. This
cUuii mean nothing less than Ill.
vlsiea which should Include tins
entire Territory. Then the tifseenifl
r~eetiun OF the act declares that, sesGs-
porariIy, the Governor define these
Judicial districts, and afterwards the
Legislature may act In the same be-
ball, and then, where the Territorial
authority has no power, the las
steps IN and says THAT fila district
Courts of the United States shall
have the saIg,e igsisdIetioa Is the
United States Courts In the various
states have. Then IL would apIeaT
that the Laws af Congress wUlid
operate nnqp tbs excluded territory
iil MI casEss arising qnder the Con.
stalut hn and iaWs Qf the United
States, as n vested In the Circuit and
District Courts syf kf1e United States.