Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1901-06-17
so SAYS JUDGE BUM IN INDIAN
CASES.
WARDS OF UNITED STATES
Receiving All Aid and Protection From
Federal Government, Common
wealth Cannot Extend Its Law to
Them, In Either Criminal or Civil
Matters.

that the state fish and game laws do
not extend to the wards OF the nation
on Indian reservations, is of such
Importance mat it is here reproduced
in full:
John Blackbfrd, an Indian and mem
Der of the Chippewa tribe OF indians Sit
uate and residing on the Bad river reserya-
ton in the state of Wisconsin, on April %,
1901, was arrested upon the reserya-
ton by one Bert Mclaughlin for setting
net for fish in Bear Trap creek, small
yation. His net was seized by the game
warden and he taken to Ashland and tried
in the municipal court and convicted OF
fishing with net contrary to the fish ana
game laws of the state, and sentenced to
pay a fine of SIS and costs amounting to
$11.75, and in default of payment was SEN
fenced by the court to Imprisonment at
hard labor in the county jail of Ashland
county for 80 days This writ is sued out
at the instance of the United States gov
eminent to test the legality OF his con-
vction and imprisonment.
The evidence showed that Backbird was
a full blooded Indian and member of the
Chippewa tribe OF Indians residing on the
Bad River reservation lying up on Lake
Superior in Wisconsin, under the care OF
an Indian agent appointed by the United
States And the question is whether the
fish and game laws of Wisconsin extend to
the arrest and punishment of Indians
maintaining their tribal relations and re-
siding upon Indian reservations within the
Units of the state. 1t is in short the con-
tinuation of a controversy which should
properly have ended with the decision OF
the United States supreme court in United
States VS.. Kagama, 11S u. s., 375. Before
that time there may have been some ex-
cuse for such decisions as that of the SUI
preme court of Wisconsin in The State vs.;
Doxtater. AZ Wis, 278, where it was held
that the crimianl laws of this state apply
to the Indians on their reservations within
the state and that the state circuit courts
have jurisdiction Of all crimes committed
within the borders Of the county of Brown
where the reservation was situated. Ihat
decision was made in 1878 before the law
of congress providing code OF criminal
law for Indians so situated was passed:
In the case of Worcester VS.. State of
Georgia, 6 Pet, 515, the supreme court OF
the United States had held that, though
the Indians had by treaty sold their lana
within that state, and agreed to remove
away, which they had failed to do, the
state could not, while they remained on
these lands, extend it's laws criminal and
civil over the tribes; that the duty and
power to compel their removal was in the
United States, and the tribe was under
lneir protection, and not subjected to the
laws of the state and the process OF its
courts.
~ sec. 9, chapter Al of the act Of CON
gress of March 3, 1885; congress provided as
follows: THAT Immediately upon and
after the date of the passage of this act
all Indians, committing against the person
or property of another Indian or other per-
son any of the following crimes, namely
murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with
intent to KILL arson, burglary and larceny
within any territory of the United states,
and either within without an Indian
reservation, shall be subject therefor to the
laws of such territory relative to said
crimes, and shall be tried therefor in the
same courts and in the same manner and
shall be subject to the same penalties as
are all other persons charged with the
commission of said crimes, respectively;
and the said courts are hereby given juris-
diction in all such cases. and all such In
dams committing any of the above crimes
against the person or property of another
Indian or other person within the boun-
daries of any state of the United States,
and within the limits Of any Indian reSer-
walton, shall be subject to the same laws,
tried in the same courts and in the same
manner, and subject to the same penalties
as are all other persons committing any
OF the above crimes within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States"
The jurisdiction of congress to pass this
act and the jurisdiction of the United
States courts under it, was fully consid-
cred and settled by the supreme court in
United States VS.. Kagama, 118 U. s., 375.
Justice Miller speaking for the court gives
the true ground for maintaining the Grim
inal jurisdiction of the United States over
the Indians thus: The statute itself con-
tains no express limitation upon the pow
ers of a state or the jurisdiction of it's
courts. If there be any limitation in either
of these, it grows out OF the implication
arising from the fact that congress has de-
fined a crime committed within the state,
and made it punishable in the courts of the
United States. But congress has done this,
and can do it, with regard to all offenses
relating to matters to which the federal
authority extends. Does that authority eX
tend to this case? 1t will be seen at once
that the nature of the offense (murder) is
one which in almost all cases of it's com
iSCin iS q q
states, and within the Jurisdiction of their
courts. The distinction is claimed to be
that the OtfenSe under the statute is COM
mitted by an Indian, that it is committed
on reservation set apart within the state
for residence of the tribe of Indians by the
United States, and the fair inference is
that the offending Indian shall belong to
that or some other tribe. 1t does not in
terfere with the process OF the state courts
within the reservation, nor with the opera
ton of state laws upon white people found
an Indian of some tribe of a criminal
character, committed within the limits of
the reservation. 1t seems to us that this
is within the competency of congress.
These Indian tribes are the wards of the
nation. They are communities dependent
on the United States, dependent largely
for their daily food, dependent for their
political rights. They owe no allegiance
to the states and receive from them no
protection. Because of the local i'll feel
ing, the people of the states where they
are found are often their deadlleSt enemies.
From their very weakness and helpless
ness SO largely due to the course of deal-'
ing of the federal government with them
and the treaties in which it has been prom
Used, there arises the duty of protection,
and with it the power. This has always
been recognized by the executive and by
congress, and by this court, whenever the
question has arisen. The power of the gen
eral government over these remnants of a
race once powerful, now weak and dimin-
ished in numbers is necessary to their pro-
lection. as we'll as to the safety of those
among whom they dwell. 1t must exist in
that government, because it never has ex-
listed anywhere else, because the theater
Of it's exercise is within the geographical
limits of the United States, because it has
never been denied, and because it alone
can enforce it's laws on all the tribes"
This case should and does settle the
question by the highest judicial authority,
that congress, having taken jurisdiction of
crimes committed by Indians within the
limits of an Indian reservation, that juris
diction is exclusive and that the state
laws do not extend to these cases. The
supreme court of Minnesota in 1893, in
State VS. Campbell, SO Mimi, 354. states
the true doctrine and submits to the juris-
diction of the federal courts in these cases
in the proper spirit.
In that case, as in the case Of Doxtater,
NNTf