The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-06-08
NO Law T0F|T THE CASE.
A Convicted Indian Goes Free Be-
cause His Punishment IL
Not Provided For.
It Happened Because Montana
Was Not q State Back
In 1895.
Judge Knowles Orders the Reese Verdict
Against the Union Pacific Reduced
From 421 900 to $4,000.

Judge Knowles. In the United States
court. yesterday gave . decision In the case
of Adolph Barnaby, or = motion to arrest
Judgment. Adolph Barnaby was charged
with an assault with intent to commit
murder, on Alexander Ashley. With = knife.
on the Flhthead reservation last February.
Both men are Flathead Indians. Barnaby
was tried and convicted in tho United
States court here, but an arrest Of judg-
ment was asked BY his counsel. 4. II.
Crutsher, Il. G. Garland and Charles Con-
radis. Among the grounds for this motion
we're that the indictment charged no offsnse
known to the laws of the United States:
that for the crime charged there was NO
punishment provided by the United States
laws. Judge Knowles found that there Was
no suoh crime known In the revised ststutes
~ assault with the intent to commit
murder" Al to pupishing the ofense by
common law. Judge Knowles holds that
''there 10 no common law o~ffensss against
the United States, and no punish
meat can be inflicted for any
common law ofrsnss unless the
punishment therefor il specially provided
for by congress-" Tho judge cites the law
Of the United States. passed in 1926, to the
effect that iii any otfsnss be committed in
any place which has been or may be ceded
to and under the jurisdiction of the United
States. which ofenss IL not specifically pro-
vided for by any laws of the United States,
such ofenss shall be liable to and receive
the Same ~punishment az tho laws of the
state in which such place IL situated, nov
in FORCE provided for the like offsnse
when committed within the Jurisdiction Of
such state: and no subsequent repeal Of any
such state law shall affect any prosecution
for such ofense In any court of tho United
States" Judge Knowles says the supreme
court held this to apply to state statutes
punishing crimes. which existed at the time
Of the passage of the law Of 1886. II do
not see how any other conclusion could be
reached" he says. Congress mighs be
willing to adopt the laws Of / state which
existed at the m Of the passage of q
statute by it (conQress) but would hardly
be willing before hand to adopt all the
criminal statutes q state might in future
enact" For this reason the laws Of Mon
1926.
In conclusion Judge Knowles says. II
do not say that when an Indian commits
q crime against a white man within the
state. and off q reservation, hs cannot be
punished by the laws of the state whore the
offense was committed. But the state oan-
not regulate in any manner the social rela- |
tions of An organized Indian tribe among
themselves. There was, then, no law Of
Montana touching this crime at the time
the Fladhead Indian rsser yation was ceded,
If ever, to tho United States. I hardly
think the agreement by which the United
States retained Jurisdiction over the Flat |
head reservation can be called q csding 10
the United States of tho Same. For these
reasons I find that the defendant COM
mitted no crime for which this court can
enter a Judgment Furnishing him. As the
government of the United States has IN
dertaken to oontrol Indians by laws, and
has left them no longer to be controlled by
their tribal rules and regulations, it il to be
regretted that an adequate and proper code
of laws to this end has not been enacted BY
congress. This attempt to adopt tsrritor-
ial and state laws may DO classsd a. indo-
lent legislation, not we'll adapted to pro-
ducinR order upon Indian reservations, or
in those places under the exclusive 1uris-
diction Of the general government, and al
lowing men guilty Of crimes demanding in
all civilized governments punishment, al
in this case, to escape their just deserts"
The defendant was ordered discharged
from custody.