The Iola register., 1889-11-29
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Judge Foster Decides That No.AIan's-Land
is Subject to United States Laws Govern.
Ing Indian TerrifNrY.

Judge Foster Decides That tNo-Man's-Land
is Subject to United States Laws Gov ern.
Ing Indian Territory.
TOPEKA, Kan, Nov. 21.-Judge
Foster of the United States District
Court has decided that the alleged
Stevens County murdererS should be
transferred to Texas for trial. The de-
cision caused CONSERVATION among the
prisoners, all of whom had been as
sured by their lawyers that they would
soon be at liberty. They served notice
of appeal tC Judge Brewers court and
were sent to Jail pending the hearing,
which will probably be held next Mon
day in this city.
The position of the Government,
broadly, was that all public lands Of
the United States, whether particular
ly set apart to any Indian tribes or not,
were for the purpose of constituting
statutes and making general laws and
rules for the government of such cCun-
try. to be deemed and held to be In
dian country, if not included within a
State or Territory.
The defendants contended that this
was not Indian country and therefore
was never attached to the Northern
district of Texas and was attached to
no district and was not in the juriSdic-
tiOn of the United States at the time
the offense was committed; that if the
Muskogee Court act attempted to at
tach this territory to the Eastern dis
trict of Texas it could have no applica.
ton to Offenses committed prior to the
date of that act. The defendants
further contended that they had con-
stitutional guaranty of a right to a
trial in district designated and formed
by law prior to the commission of the
offense.
The Government contended that this
constitutional provision did not apply
to Offenses committed within the terri
tory, and further that Paris, Tex, the
place designed for the trial of those
inditments, was within the territory
which constituted the Northern district
of Texas at the time the offense was
committed.
Judge Foster, in deciding the case,
stated that questions of great interest
were involved and had been ably dis
cussed by attorneys on both sides, and
that the history of the acquisition of this
particular piece of territory had been
made very clear upon the argument,
and held that in general proposition
the court, in the trial of case, must
determine its own jurisdiction, and
upon the trial of Il case it must
be morally satisfied of its juris-
diction of the person or subject
matter; that in an application for
habeas corpus, such as this, if it was
manifest to the court here that the
Texas court had jurisdiction of the
person or subject matter involved the
court would not hesitate to so declare,
but if it was a question of doubt
whether the Texas court had jurisdic-
tion or not. it should be left to that
court to decide, and certainly SO, if
upon the weight of authorities it
seemed that that court did have juris-
diction; that the act of 1884 under the
rulings of the Supreme Court of the
United States became applicable to
this territory acquired from Texas
the moment it was so acquired, and it
became, to all intentS and purposes,
and especially for the purpose of con-
STRUNG statutes, treaties, ETC., Indian
country Being Indian country, it was,
by the act of 1855, attached to and be-
came a part of the Northern district of
Texas and was part of that district
when the Offense was committed; that
by the act of 1889 it was transferred to
the Eastern district OF Texas; that the
place of trial in the Eastern dis
trict of TeXas-Paris-was within the
territory which constituted the North
ern district of Texas at the time the Of
fenSe was committed. This being true,
the Judge held there was no violation
of the constitutional guaranty that a
man should have trial in the district
in which the offense was committed, if
that provision was applicable to Of
fenses committed within the Territories
and not within the boundaries of any
State.