The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-11-25
Question as TO Which One Fred
Particle Shall 30 Tried
Under.
The Former Means imprisonment
While the Latter Means
Hanging.
A Demurrer To ths Indictments In the
Barnum Cases Zach Sales For
feits His bonds.

Rufus G. Garland, son OF President Cleve-
lands attorney general. and who was but
recently admitted to tha bar here, will
have a case for the supreme court OF The
United States involving tho important
question Of Jurisdiction on Indian reserva-
tions. Fred Particle. . Mexican. was in
dicted by the United states grand jury a
few days ago for the crime Of rape com-
mitted on one Tishie Grab am, IN the Grow
Indian reservation. Nov. 20, 1880. Ordin-
arly II would seem that IL should make
very little difference to Particle whether he
was tried for an offense against the state
laws or the federal laws. But it does make
a deal OF difference. Under the United
States c~riminallaws Particle can be hanged.
Under Montana state laws he can only be
Imprisoned. Attorney Garland demurred
to the Jurisdiction of this United States
court, claiming among other things that
the government. while it had author
lty over the Indians had none
over white men accused of ~offenses
on reservations, which he argued should be
tried by the state authorities. Judge
Knowles did not take the same view Of the
matter, but told Attorney Garland that il
was such an important matter that he
would like to see it passed upon by tho su-
preme court. Partello's case will1o doubt
go to that tribunal. Judge Knowles, in his
opinion, says:
The United States, from the earliest or
ganization of the national government, has
assumed control over the several Indian
tribes In the United States and has denied
such control to tho state governments. In
the case Of the United States vs.. Stugama
the supreme court held that the Indian
tribes were subject to the control OF the
United States and could be made subject to
it's laws; that the states have no right to
subject the Indians totheir laws az long az
the Indians maintain their tribal relations
that the Indians owe no allegiance to the
state within which their reservation may be
established and the state gives them no
protection. 1t was also pointed out that
the United States had undertaken to CON
troll the Indians no longer by treaties, but
by laws, and that this right did not come
wholly from the power of congress to regu-
late among the Indian tribes.
but from the fact that congress had
ALWAYS assumed the control over them
as the wards OF the nation and as depend
ents upon the national government, and
had always refused such powers to the
state, 1t appears to ms with such a view
of the law the United States would have the
right to retain and reserve lands within q
state upon which to place its wards. these
dependents, with a view to their govern
ment, and that the states would have 3
right to agree to such a reservation. 1t
would be an anomaly in government it il
should be conceded that the United States
had full right to govern the Indians and
vet have no right to any lands upon which
to place them with that object. With such
q view we would behold a government with
out a country. The United States ID not
tention would maintain. Az an incident to
govern such people by its own laws would
be the right to hold lands upon which to
locate and maintain them. 1t was also
urged that while the United States could
have jurisdiction over such lands as far as
the Indiana are concerned 1t would
have no right over white men
such as the Crow reservation. The statute
and the ordinances we a been consider
ing say the Jurisdiction and control is alb
solute, not a divided jurisdiction OR con-
troll. And it would seem to me that this Is
proper. Any other view might bring on
collisions between the authorities OF the
two governmental. The white men,. it vas
ervation, would be employees or officers OF
the national government. And with the
view Of protecting the Indians the United
States should have control over the white
men upon an Indian reservation as we'll as
of the Indians. The Grow reservation. not
withstanding the act admitting Montana
into the union, remains then Indian
country, absolutely within the jurisdiction
of tho United States. Th general criminal
laws Of the United States are then in force
upon it. With this view the defendant, it
must be held, was properly charged"