, 1886-03-25


bounds of the reservation.
The court some time ago issued an
injunction order which was served
upon the Indian Agent residing at
Neah Bay. Capt. Powell. who has ap-
peared here. and which forbid him to
interfere with the conduct OF that
store. There is evidence before me
to the effect that he has arrested sir.
Baxter, who, it appears IS the pre5i
dent OF the Fur company, the p!aInt-
ii and owner of the stOre-arrested
him, |. say, and put him off the re-
servation. He claims to have done
this under orders from the commits
sioner of Indian affairs and l pre-
sumo it is so. At least be had reason
able grounds to believe that the COM
missioner of Indian affairs had order
ed him to do so. find as matter
of fact that Mr.. Baxter was in this
store and came out TO mail a letter
In order to mail that letter he had to
go about $50 yards from his store
The place where he was to mail the
letter was on the main land and with
in the bounds of the reservation. 1t
does not appear that Major or Capt.
Powell 0 do not know what his pro
per title isl interfered with Mr. BaX-
ter any farther than to arrest him
when he found him outside of the
store and place him on board of a
vessel, or SO exclude him from the
reservation that he thought it was
worth his while to get aboard a yes
sci
Was this act of Capt. Powell a dis
obedience of the injunction order
The injunction order forbid his in
terfering with the business of the
store. He does not appear to have
gone to the store and taken MIR. Bax-
ter from there, but he has found AIr.
Baxter outside of tho store on the
tract of the reservation and in ac-
cordance with orders he had received,
he arrested and excluded him. He
does not appear to have forbidden
him to go back to the store.
Mr.. Metcalf counsel for plaintiff
I would like to call the courts at
tention to the order of the chief of
police. which is in evidence, IN which
defendant inhibits Mr.. Baxter or his
clerk from going from the store or
going to it.
The Court me see that order.
tReads.) "You and your police are
ordered not to let Mr.. S. Baxter OF
his clerk on the reservation, except
in either his store, house or dwelling;
that is if they come out of either OF
those houses after daylight tomorrow
morning, except for the purpose OF
taking the boat or other conveyance
to leave the reservation, then arrest
them and bring them before me-"
As say, the question is whether
there was here an inference with the
injunction order. l think that the
injunction order-the original injunc-
ton order-was issued by the Judge
unadvisedly and for want of sufficient
evidence before him, sufficient infor-
nation at that time possessed by him
| to show him that the store claimed
by Baxter or the Fur company could
not possibly be outside of the reser-
walton. The original order was issued
on the theory, as indicated by the
facts alleged in the complaint, that
Mr. Baxter's store was outside the
reservation. Now, that beng the
case, and the fact regarding the loca-
ton of the store Icing as now ap-
pears, the injunction order, for the
purpose of determining any question
of contempt, should be most strictly
construed. Because, undoubtedly
Major Powell had authority on that
reservation to exclude from it whom
soever he pleased-that is to say,
whomsoever he, as Indian agent,
thought necessary for the good of the
Indians to exclude from the reserva-
ton. That was his trust; that was
his particular function-to take care
of the indians and keep off the reser-
vation all other persons whose pres
ence there was deemed disadvanta-
geous or injurious. Constituting the
Injunction order strictly it could have
no farther application than to restrain
Capt. Powell from doing those things
that must necessarily interfere with
the business of the store; the legiti-
mate business of the store, or such
business as it could carry on and still
be store.
Now, 1 don't think that upon evi-
dence before me, it appears that he
did so interfere with the business in
the store, even though it appears that
Mr.. Sutlief Baxter was the managing
agent of that store, and though it APP
pears he was going from the store to
mail letter, or even though it ap-
pears the letter was q letter mailed IN
the business of the store, about which
latter point I am not clear. These
views are decisive of this contempt
case. Capt. Powell must be acquitted.
AT the same time / may observe that,
assuming that the store were on the
reservation and an injunction order
had improvidently issued, it would be
the duty of the person against whom
the injunction order had issued and
on whom it was served scrupulously
10 obey the judicial order. And al
though if the party enjoined should
have right to do the very thing that
he was enjoined from doing, and his
right depended on a question of fact,
the court would not hold him guilt
less if he disobeyed the order. His
remedy would be to apply for the
revocation Of the order. The court
might consider as to whether or not
there was any wilfulness in the DISC
bedience, and might relieve him from
payment of all expenses but costs.
But in this case, upon these proofs,
and holding the restrictive construc-
ton of the injunction order which
under the circumstances I feel bound
to do, I find that the Judgment should
be one of not guilty in the case.
Another Pacific Railroad.