The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-07-27
It IS A MATTER Of DOUBT
Right of State Officers to Arrest
on Reservation.
CLASH OF SOVEREIGNTY
Attorney General Nolan Renders an opin-
ion The Federal Power supreme-A
Question OF Jurisdiction-A Court
Must Pass Upon IL.

Special Correspondence of the STANDARD
Helena, July 2s-Attorney General
Nolan. In an opinion asked for by
Sherin John GLIB. holds that weight
of authorities indicate that a state ofii-
Ger has no authority to enter upon a
reservation aud arrest an Indian who
is ward OF the government for a
crime committed on the reservation.
Sheriff Glib wrote thai there was stil
a conflict Of authority between himself
and Captain Stouch. the Cheyenne In
dian agent. and although he believed
he had right to make arrests on the
reservation, he did not care To run any
risks until he had been advised by the
attorney general.
Attorney General Nolan says that
there must continue to be conflict
until the supreme court of the United
states passes upon the question. Upon
commenting upon the question he says:
1T Is question that ought to be set
tied by the courts, as II practically in
wolves clashing Of the executive
power OF state and federal sovereignty,
The federal power Of course. is su-
preme. but the question In this case is
whether there Is such jurisdiction ex-
ercised by the federal government over
the Indians whose tribal relation has
not been severed. living upon a reser-
walton, so that no process can be- served
upon such Indians without the consent
of the federal government. Cnques-
tionably this Is the position that Cap
tain Stouch is seeking to maintain, and
l am free To say that the decisions
available are not OF such character
that a conclusion can be reached In
the premises absolutely free from
doubt"
After reviewing the authorities. the
attorney general says In conclusion: Il
fully appreciate the complexity of this
proposition. The criminal laws of this
state have been violated upon a terri
tory exclusively within the jurisdiction
OF the state and unqucstionably the
state courts would have jurisdiction to
try the person committing this offense.
IL happens. however. that the alleged
violator OF the law Ii a tribal Indian.
and after the commission OF the crime
returns to the reservation. II would
seem consonant with reason that the
state. having authority TO serve pro-
cess upon the reservation. would have
authority In this instance To secure
such an Indian b~<e9 e>stifned hereto
fore II is my Judgment the right of the
state thus To secure such an Indian II
not an absolute one and whether such
an Indian shall be surrendered 10 the
state authorities or not Is matter de-
pendent upon the volition of the fed
eral government.
1T IL not the policy of our govern
ment. federal or state. that any portion
of the United States should be secure
as an asylum for one who violates the
law. and | am satisfied that II the
present representative OF the govern
ment upon the reservation manifests a
disposition to make the reservation a
refuge for those Indians who have COM
mitted crimes against the state. that
upon the attention OF the proper au-
thorities being called to this fact. DIFF
ferent disposition Will be manifested.
should prefer that the determination
OF this question should be made by a
court whose decision would carry with
II authority. for at best the Views ex.
pressed I'm this opinion may or may not
be correct. Al any rate. they are tn,
ones that | entertain after carefu
and thorough investigation OF the ques'
ton"