The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-09-12
NOT COVERED BY LAW
Selling Liquor to British Column
bia Indians No 0ffense.
THE COMMISSIONERS OPINION.
A Forty-Thousand Dollar foreclosure
suit-Four Burglars Found
GuIIty-The Biotter.

Jack Thompson, charged with selling liquor
10 an Indian, was discharged yesterday by
United states Commissioner Emery, il appear
ing that the Indian Is resident of British Co
lumbia The commissioner. however. ordered
the prisoner to be turned over 10 the state au-
thorities to be tried for violation OF the state
laws
District Attorney Patrick Henry Winston, 20
whom the case was referred, in giving opin-
ion in court said: "An Indictment in such
case could not be sustained unless the Indian is
Ia charge of an Indian agent of the United
states. Even the case Of American Indians who
have severed their tribal relations does not
come within the purview OF the Federal statute
The Indian in the case is British subject and
is entitled 10 the rights and privileges of other
British subjects. IL is doubtful if the prisoner
csn be punished under the state law, as it may
be in contravention Of the treaty with Great
Britain, but that question does not arise in this
case. Ii is the duty of the United states mar
shall to arrest persons furnishing liquor 70 In
dams and of the United States commissioner to
decide as to their liability"
In dismissing the case Commissioner Emery
rendered the following opinion:
The prisoner is arrested on the charge of sell
ing whisky to an Indian. he admits having
furnished the whisky, but as the evidence
shows that the Indian is native and resident
81 British Columbia temporarily in this state.
be does not come within the purview of the act
~s1D
Revised Statutes OF the United states. provides
for the punishment of "svery person who Sells
exchanges, gives, baTteTs or disposes OF sny
sp.rituous liquors or wine 70 any Indian under
ths charge Of any Indian superintendent or
agent"
The only question TO lie considered is: Was
this Indien, at tie time he purchased the
whisky, under charge of AL Indian superintend-
ent or agent within the meaning OF the statute?
II is not q be presumed that congress, in en-
acting the statute quoted, had reference TO any
other officers than those appointed under the
laws OF the United states. The British Column
hia Indians, while at home, are under the charge
Of agents OF their own country; while TEN porar-
iiy passing through or residing in this country
fhey are under the same protection any other
British subjects. Congress never INTENDED by
the act. nor has il the constitutional power, 10
punish citizen for selling liquor TO a British
subject The general government may make
laws regulating commerce with the Indian
tribes" tsec. 5, Constitution L. S., but il has
never attempted 10 prohibit the liquor traffic
with other than its own Indians.
The power Is, however, within the police
powers of the several states, and our own legis-
latHre has, by section a42 OF the code, prohibited
TIE disposition OF ''wines, spirituOus liquors,
sic, beer, porter, cider or any other Intoxicating
beverage, TO any Indian or Indians within this
territory"
The question presented Is res ddjudiodtd The
learned judge OF the district court of the United
States for this district has repeatedly held that
the act of congress, under which this prisoner is
arrested, applies only TO Indians whose domicile
is within the territorial limits OF the United
States.
The prisoner is discharged from this arrest and
state authorities with q view 70 his punishment
under the state