Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1901-06-13
TATE HAS NO
JURISDICTION
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.

The recent decision of Judge Bum,
in which the doctrine was enunciated
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 BlackBird, an Indian and a MEM
Der of the Chippewa tribe of Indians sit
uate and residing on the Bad river reserva-
ton in the state of Wisconsin, on April %,
1901, was arrested upon the reserya-
tiOn by one Bert Mclaughlin for setting a
net for fish in Bear Trap creek, a small
stream upon and mainly within the reser-
vation His net WAS seized by the game
warden anu he taken to Ashland and tried
IN the municipal court ana convicted OF
fishing with a net contrary to the fish and
game laws of the state, and sentenced to
pay Il fine of S25 and costs amounting to
SILL 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
ernment to test the legality of his con-
victon and imprisonment.
The evidence showed that Blackbird was
full blooded Indian and a 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
limits of the state. 1t is in short the con-
| tinuation of 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
WiScOn vs.
Doxtater, AZ Wis, 27S, where it was held
tnat 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. That
| decision was made in 1878 before the law
of congress providing a code of criminal
law for Indians so situated was passed.
In the case of Worcester VS.. State of
Georgia, Pet, 515, the supreme court of
the United States had held that, though
the Indians had by treaty sold their land
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
Ineir protection, and not subjected to the
laws of the state and the process of it's
courts.
NY sec. g. 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 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 or 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-
dIctlon 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-
DIARIES 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'
Inc Jurisdiction of congress to pass this
act and the jurisdiction of the United
states courts under it, was fully consid-
United States vs. Kagama, lis Z. S., 375
Justice Miller speaking for the court gives
the true ground for maintaining the Grim
maj jurisdiction of the United States over
talns 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, 1t grows out of the implication
arising from the fact that congress has de-
hned crime committed within the state
ana made 1t punishable in the courts of the
United states. But congress has done this,
ana can do it, with regard to all offenses
relating to matters to which the federal
autnorlty extends: Does that authority ex-
tend TO this case? 1t will be seen at once
of
one which in almost all cases of its COM
mission is punishable by the laws of the
states, and within the jurisdiction of their
courts. The distinction is claimed to he
that the otfense under the statute is com
mitted by an Indian, that it is committed
on reservation set apart within the state
Tor 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
tefIere with the process of the state courts |
tion OF state laws upon white people found
there. It's effect is confined to the acts of |
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-
Ihese Indian tribes are the wards of the |
nation They are communities dependent
on the United States, dependent largely
Tor their daily food, dependent for their
political rights. They owe no allegiance
TO the states, and receive from them no
Ing, the people of the states where they
are found are often their deadliest 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 il has been prom
lsed, there arises the duty of protection,
ana with 1t 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
aral government over these remnants of a
race once powerful. now weak and dimfn-
shed in numbers, is necessary to their pro-
lection as well as to the safety of those
among whom they dwell. 1t must exist in {
hat government, because it never has ex-
sted anywhere else, because the theater
Il its exercise is within the geographical
limits of the United States, because it has
never been denied. and because it alone
IAN enforce its laws on all the tribes"
This case should and does settle the
question by the highest judicial authority,
hat congress, having taken jurisdiction of
:rimes committed by Indians within the
limits Of an Indian reservation, that juris-
LECTION is exclusive and that the state
avs do not extend to these cases. The =
,upreme court of Minnesota in 1893, in !
State VS.. Campbell, SO Mimi, 354, statesi
he true doctrine and submits to the juris-
fiction of the federal courts in these cases ,
n the proper spirit.
IN that case, as in the case of Doxtater,
upra. decided by the supreme court of
Wisconsin, the crime of which the state L
Ssumed to have Jurisdiction over the In
ians was that Of adultery. which the
United States statute above quoted gives