Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1880-03-06
THE BEeBE MURDER CASE.
A New Trial Refused BY Judge Shannon.
from which Ruling the Defendant.
Excepts.

Excepts.
The Twenty Ninth Day OF March Fixed
upon as the Date f0r r~Tonouncing the
Sentence of Death.
This being the date agreed upon. for the
decision OF the court on the motion for y
new trial i'll the case Of S,lss +. Beebe, con
victed of the murder Of George Lsndphere,
at Crow creek, on the 4lh Of last July, the
matter was brought OH at ten o'clock this
morning. The prisoner was in the court
with his counsel Gen Dewey. the prosecution
being represented by United States At,or-
ney Campbell.
The proceedings opened with the reading
of the court record in the case, which
showed that final action after convict IN had
been postponed four times, that the prison.
er's. C unset might have ample opportunity
to prepare and deliver arguments in supper,
of the motion for a new trial. This motion
was based upon the claim that the indict-
ment for murder was not presented in a
court having jurisdiction in the case, that
the court had erred upon sundry questions
oflaw and that the final verdict was con-
trary TO the law and evidence.
Judge Shannon, as a preliminary to the
delivery Of his opinion in the case, asked
the defendant whether he had anything fur
Their to urge in support Of the motion for n
new trial and arrest o Judgment.
General Dewey, counsel for Beebe, replied
than he had not.
Judge Shannon then proceeded to deliver
his opinion. He said it was conceded thar
the defendant aud his counsel had been CIV
en- ample time. The motion for a new Trial
and arrest Of judgment had been made on
the 18th of December last. Al the Tim.
specified the defendants counsel had argued
the motion with great force aud ability and
the court had sought time to consider it
The solemnity and importance Of the case
demanded careful consideration. New
points had successfully arisen aud these had
been quickly seized upon BY the able com
sci for the defendant. Prominent among
these points was the question OF Jurisdiction.
1t was alleged that to give this court jur!-.
diction the crime must be committed in the
Indian country and the counsel had endeav.
ored TO show that it was not 80 committed.
1t was u claim of great magnitude and re-
qaircd close attention. The point had very
properly been chung to with great per,inaci.
tv by the counsel for the defendant. After
due deliberation the court was convinced
that the murder was committed in the In.
dian country. Two points had been con
stdered in re .ching this conclusion-irst
WASH it Indian country by treaty or by proc.
lamation? second, was i. Indian country
through both Of these processes? The cour,
held that under the first and second treaties
with the Yanktonais Indians the scene OF
the murder became an Indian reservation
|; was true that the boundaries were not al
the time prescribed. but like all other con,
tracts where right was given the bounds
were afterwards settled. The boundaries O
this reservation had been settled to the sat
~iafaction Of the Indians and Of the govern.
ment and had since been recognized by con
gress in carrying out the provisions Of the
treaty and by the Indians in their continued
residence on the reservation. 1t was an e,.
press enactment OF the people that president.
have accorded to them the right to reserve
any portion Of the public domain for any
pnblic purpose and this right had beer
sustained by the supreme court OF the Unit
ed States. There was no doubt that the su
preme authority in territories was the gov.
ern,Lent Of the United States. The terrific
rial condition had been arranged by III,
wisest statesmen of the Ian l and those wht
had accepted the condition must accept il
cordially. Residents Of the territories coult
not nsurp the sovereign " lodged in
the general government. Over all thi.
country the jurisdiction of the courts Of thu
United States had been extended for ,hs
punishment of crime. Territories were di
vlded into districts each presided over b,
one Of the justices Of the supreme court ant
we're given ,risdiction therein for the ,,nr.
nose VI carrying out the laws of the United
States. The argument for a. new trial wa,
based upon the proposition that this court
had no Jurisdiction in this case. The cour
was unable TO reach such a conclusion.
The court had careful " review i III
{ Hing IN the case and WAS unable to dttet,
tue slightest error. Il had s,udious!,
paused as each objection was made ant
csretully considered it and whenever
reasonable daubt arose the prisoner wal
given the benefit of il.
The court had been asked to rule gu, ,ht
confession testimony given by s mars, bul
IT would have been q gross violation O
.tlsw1 TO have complied NTH the II qaes..
The defendant had testified that he DE-
moi Participate 10 he murder, but that III,
other members of his party did. He hat