, 1890-12-17
AN IMPORTANT DECISION
Question of Jurisdiction Over Of
fences on Reservations.
Judge Riner Decides They Should be
Tried In State Courts.
A Fremont County Man Charged
with Murder Set Free.

having killed George B. TAFT on the Sho-
shone Indian reservation last May.
reached here yesterday in charge of the
United States marshal, and his case was
at once taken up in the United States cir
cult court before Judge Riner. United
States District Attorney Fowler appeared
forthe government. while A. G. Campbell
represented the prisoner. The questions
involved were purely legal. TAFT was a
Sandwich Islander, and was known as a
hard character in Fremont county. TAFT
and Pierce quarreled over the possession
Of a s'olen saddle, and In the melee TAFT
was killed. There we're no witnesses to
the killing, and everybody in Fremont
county considered Tait's taking off as a
good riddance.
After the shooting Pierce Immediately
went to Lander and gave himself up to
Sheriff Sparhawk. Complaint was made
before a Justice of the peace, but Prose
outing Attorney Allen refused to prose-
cute the man. on the ground hat Judge
Corn had, in other cases, where a crime
had been committed on a reservation, de-
cided that the territory had no jurisdiction
to try these o~fenses. The com plaiut was
then made before United States Commits
sioner Moore, at Fort Washakie, under
the United States laws. Moore held him
in $1,000 bail to answer at the next term
OF the United States circuit for that OILS.
trict. In the meantime Wyoming was
admitted as a state. and if he was to be
tried under the United States laws at all,
he would be tried before the United
States circuit court at Cheyenne.
An application for a writ of habeas cor
pus tor bis discharge was made before
Judge Riner oI the 9th of December.
The circuit courts have exclusive jurisdic
ton IN murder cases, but the district
courts have power to issue writs of babeas
corpus, The writ was Immediately al
lowed, and the hearing was had on it
yesterday.
A. y. Campbell was the attorney for
Pierce. He commended that the offense
was subject to the then territory OF Wyo-
ming, and that the offender should have
been bound over to answer at the next
term Of the district court Tor the
Third Judicial district of the territory Of
Wyoming. sitting in and for tho county
Of Fremont.
While Judge Corn had held that in
cases of this kind the Federal courts had
exclusive jurisdiction, Mr.. Campbell
claimed that in order that an Indian res
reservation within a state or territory shall
be under the Jurisdiction of the federal
courts, that jurisdiction must be exclu-
sive aud cannot exist unless the act of
congress organizing a state or territorial
government contains a provision that no
lands in the possession of an Indian tribe
shall be a part of the new state or terri
tory. After the organization of a terrific
rial government congress can exclude by
treaty o. legislation such reser walton from
the jurisdiction of its laws, but in the case
OF a state it cannot be done without the
consent of such state. In the absence of
such a provision, and of any subsequent
legislation by congress on the subject or
treaty stipulation, such territory has ex-
elusive jurisdiction over the reservation,
but not over the Indians themselves.
There is no such provision in either the
act of congress creating the territory of
Wyoming or in the treaty with the Sho-
shone Indians by which the Shoshone
reservation was created. Even though
any treaty with the Shosbone Indians
had excepted the reservation from the
jurisdiction Of territorial law, the provision
would have been inopc rative after the act
o~fcongress creating Wyoming, as that act
contained no provision excepting the res
ervation from the operation of territorial
law.
A case decided in the Wyoming courts,
in which Judge Peck rendered the decis-
Ion, had failed to make the distinction
that while the territory had no jurisdic.
ton over the Indians themselves, it had
Jurisdiction over the Indian reservation.
This distinction had been clearly drawn
BY the United States supreme court sew
eral times,
Another point relied upon by counsel
for the prisoner was that, under the com-
mon law, aud under the constitution of
the United States, the defendant was en-
titled to a speedy trial. He had been in
the custody of the United States authori-
ties since May, ls90-a federal grand
Jury having been empsnneled and dis