Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1896-01-30
THE NEW COURT BILL.
Synopsis Of the Measure Prepared by
the Judges Of the Territory Court.

Ihe Judges oil the united States
court in the Indian Territory, in
consultation with Judge Stuart,
have prepared bill to amend the
act of March 1, 1895, and other
acts relating to the United States
court in the Indian Territory.
Section / of the bill merely pro
vidss that the act of March 1, 1895,
be amended as provided in this
bill.
Section 2 provides that the mar
shals can enter into bonds in any
sum not less than ten thousand
nor more than fifty thousand dol
lars. This will enable them to
have funds on hand sufficient to
pay current expenses of the court.
Section 3 is perhaps the most inn
portant in the bill. 1t provides
that the marshal may appoint for
each district one chief deputy mar
shal at a salary of $1,000 a year,
and six deputy marshals at a salary
of 81 200 per year and their expen-
ses as now provided by law, and
in addition to these, each marshal
may appoint as many other depu-
ties as may be necessary for the
enforcement of law and the sup
preston of crime, and these addi-
tional deputies are to receive as
compensation the fees which are
allowed to United States marshals
in the several states. But none of
these iced deputies shall receive a
greater compensation than 500
per month. This will enable the
marshals to employ deputies at all
the towns in the tsrritory,who will
receive such compensation as they
may earn.
Section 4 authorizes the clerks to
appoint two deputies at South Nc
alester, Muskogee and Ardmore,
one to receive 500 per month and
the other $50 per month.
Section 5 authorizes the jndge of
the northern district to appoint two
additional commissioners and con-
stables.
Section 6 re-enacts the provision
in the act of March 1, 1895, in re.
lation to the jurisdiction of the
United States courts. in larceny
cases. and gives full jurisdiction to
the United States courts of the
crimes and offenses mentioned in
Mansfield's Digest under the title
of Larceny and Embezzlement."
This was undoubtedly the inten-
tion of the act of March l, 1895,
but was SO ambiguous as to be con-
strued differently at Fort Smith
and Paris, from the judges of the
Indian Territory, they still retain
ing Jurisdiction.
Section Z simply provides that
appeals in civil cases from COM
missioners to the United States
court, shall be allowed in all cases
where the value in controversy ex-
ceeds $40 Under the old law, the
words used were. "where the jud-
ment exceeds $40" And in cases
replevin, where there was no mon.
ey judgment. the appeal was cut
off.
Section S removes the disquali-
fication heretofore existing as to
Indians serving as jurors in Grim
inal cases.
Section 8 defines more clearly
the provisions in the act of March
l, 1895, in relation to changes of
venue and transfer of cases for
trial to places in the same district.
Section 10 gives exclusive juris-
dictioD to the United States court
in the territory to enforce the pro-
vision of section s of the act of
March |, 1895, relating to intoxi-
eating liquors. This was undoubt-
edly the intention of the act, but
the court at Fort Smith still re-
tains jurisdiction.
Section IL provides that if a ma
jorIty of the judges OF the court Of
are for any reason dis
qualified from sitting in a case, the
pap RS in the case are TO be trans
mitted to the United States circuit
court of appeals, and to be heard
there the same as in this court.
This section further provides that
appeals in civil cases shall not be
allowed from the court of appeals
in the Indian Territory to the cir
cult court of appeals, where the
value in controversy does not ex-
ceed two thousand dollars.