The Red Cloud chief., 1889-11-29
DECISION.

j0dge Foster Decides That No-Maa's-LanA
- Subject to United states Law Govern
snE Indian Territory.
Topeka, Kan, Nov. c1.-Judge
Foster of the United States District
Court has decided that the alleged
Stevens County murderers should 10
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
socn be at liberty. They served notice
OF appeal to 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 tnbes or not,
were for the purpose of constituting
statutes and making general laws and
rules for the government of such Oun
try. to be deemed and held to be In
dian country. if not included within q
State or Territory.
The defendants commended 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-
ton 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 a con-
stitutional guaranty of a right to a
trial in a 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 OfenSe 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 a general proposition
the court. in the trial of a case, must
determine its own jurisdiction, and
upon the trial of a case it must
be morally satisfied Of its juriS-
diction of the person or subject
matter: that in an application for
habeaS corpus. such "a this, if it Was
manifest TO the court here that the
Texas court had jurisdiction Of the
person OF subject matter involved the
court would not hesitate to so declare,
but II 1t Was q question Of doubt
whether the lexas court had jurisdic-
ton or not. it should he 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 a 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
Tense was committed. This being true,
the Judge held there was no violation
of the constitutional guaranty that a
man should have a trial ia the district
in which the offense was committed. if
that provision was applicable to Of
lenses committed within the Territories
and not within the boundaries Of any
State.