The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-08-18
UNDER IN OLD STATUTE.
UNCLE SAM PROTECTS HIS OWN.
ding TRIBES OF INDIANS.
Begins . Prosecution AEainst Men
Who Removed Cattle From the
Yakima Indian ReservatiOn-I.aw

A singular example OF the paternal care
the Government al Washington exercises.
or Is legally authorized 10 exercise over
its wards. the dwinaling tribes OF Indians
scattered over the western portion OF the
United States. is 10 be found in a prosecu-
ton now pending under the direction OF
United States District Attorney Gay before
United States Commissioner l.. 5. Hewlett
at North Yakima.
The case is rather complicated, but the
only fact making i; OF any more than
passing interest is that IL is an attempt
TO convict the defendants, J. A. Noble and
u. w. Bonham. North Yakima butchers
and cattle buyers, under an old Federal
statute which makes Il 4 penal offense
20 purchase and remove from THE Indian
country any cattle, horses or other live
stock. without the permission OF the secre-
tary OF war. Strange TO say. the act of
congress appears TO be unrepeaied but Mr.
Gay has SO far been unable to find "A cas-
In which Il has been construed by the
courts. And Yet IL has been violated times
without number. as every Indian agent
appointed by the government could testify
Very few people know that such a law
exists, II indeed it nov has any applica-
ton.
According to the story told to District
Attorney Gay by the complaining witness
in the case. Noble and Borham are also
guilty OF obtaining about 800 worth of eat
tie from the Indians on the Yakima reser-
walton under false pretenses. II is alleged
that the two men were members Of a firm
of butchers in North Yakima and on about
July IL bought of Thomas Perm CAPT
Peter and Gillian Indians who were sus-
INT h.atr ,ff,u 81
head OF cattle, giving in payment checks
payable on July - and removed the cattle
from the reservation.
This. In itself, seems 10 be violation of
the old statute, but the complaining wit
nesses say that before the checks were
presented Tor payment. the firm giving
them VAS dissolved by mutual consent OF
the partners after the publication of no.
tice in the newspapers. and that when the
Indians appeared at the bank 10 get their
money they were informed that there
were no funds for the payment OF the
checks. II was the complaint OF The H.
lans at what they claimed was at attempt
10 rob them of their property that led to
the commencement of the crimina! prescott
ton.
In addition TO this prosecution. District
Attorney Gay will probably commence a
civil suit TO recover the money for the
Indians, IL II is found that the individual
partners are solvent.
The defense of the defendants, II Is
thought from u statement made by Conn
missioner Hewlett. Will be that the Indians
had lands in severalty and were no longer
wards OF the government The commits
sioner says that the defendants propose 10
make a hard fight.
The following Is the act I'm question. II
was passed on March 5. 1855. and IS contain
ed in section 2l3s of the Revised Statutes:
Every person who drives .or removes
excSp: by an order lawfully issued by the
secretary of war connected with the move
rnent or subsistence OF troops, any cattle
horses or other stock from the India
country for the purposes OF trade or com
merca. shall be punished by Imprisonment
for not more than three years or by a
fine OF not more than $5.co. or both -