Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1901-06-13
SO SAYS JUDGE BUM IN INDIAN
GASES.
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.


on Indian reservations, is of such
Importance tnat it is here reproduced
in full:
John Backbird, an Indian and a mem
Der OF the Chippewa tribe Of Indians sit
uate and residing on the Bad river rcserya-
ton in the state of Wisconsin, on April %.
1901. was arrested upon the reserya-
ton 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 and he taken to Ashland and tried
in the municipal court and convicted of
fishing with net contrary to the fish and
game laws of the state, and sentenced to
pay fine of SIS 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 30 days. This writ Is sued out
at the instance of the United States gov
eminent to test the legality of his con
viction and Imprisonment.
The evidence showed that Blackbird 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-
umts of the state. 1t is In short the con
tinuatlon of controversy which should
properly have ended with the decision of
the United States supreme court In United
States VS.. Kagama lis u. s, SO. 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, Al Wis. 27S, where II was held
tuat 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 1873 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. SIS, 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
t.ieir protection, and not subjected TO the
laws of the state and the process Of its
courts.
i,y see o. chapter II 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 lndaa or other per
son any of the following crimes, namely,
murder, maBsaughter. rape, assault with
intent to Kill, arson, burglary and larceny
within any territory of the United States,
and either within or without an Indian
reservations shall be subject therefor to the
laws of such territory relative TO said
crimes and shall he tried therefor ia the
same courts and in the same manner aud
shall he subject to the same penalties as
are all other persons charged with the
commission Of said crimes, respectively
and the said courts arc hereby given juris-
dictiOn in all such cases: and all such In
dians 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 te the same laws,
tried in the same courts and IN the same
manner, and subject to The same penalties
Js 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 il, was fully consid
cred and settled by the supreme cOnrt in
tinted States W. kagama, lls L. =, 80.
JuSiirc Miller speaking for the court gives
the true gronnd for maintaining The Grim
inAl jurisdiction Of the United States over
Tue indians lhus THE statute itself con
taius Ii, express limitation upon Tie pow
courls. II there be any limitation in either
Of these. ID grows out Of the Implication
arising from the fact that congress has de-
lined q crime committed within the state,
ami made 1t pun' Shable ia the courts of the
United States But congress has done this,
and can TO it, with regard 70 al Oncnsts
relating - matters IL Whlcb me ledeial
authority extends Does that authority ex'
TEND 10 this CASE III viii be seen at once
ihnf the nature uf the onense unurdeu Is
one which in almost ali eases 0t us com
mission b punishable by the laws Of the
states ana with the jurisdiction OF ihrii
courts. The distinction is claimed 10 be
Tint the ou"nsc under the statute Us com
| mittcd by aH Indian. hat IL Is committed
on "a reservation set apart Wl'pih the state
for residence Of the tribe Of Indians by the
, tn4.ed states and the fair Inference Is
That ihr o1cudihe Indian shan belong n
that ar some other tribe. II does not in
tnrieIc with the process OF the state courts
within the reservation, nor WIN the opera
t.0H of state laws upon white people found
there us effect IL confined 10 the acts oi
an Indian of some tribe. ~ q ctihiiha.
character. committed within the limits 81
the reservation. IL seems TO IL that tbs
is within the competency Of congress
| These indian tribes are the wards OF Inc
nation They are communities dependent
! on the United States, dependent largely
| for their daily food. dependent Tor thct
polf teal rights They owe no allegiance
/ 10 the states and receive from them 10
! protection T,acan~e % the local w feei
Ing. the people - the STATES where they
are fGpnd are often their deadlicst enemies
ffa5t ftytf Etrt weakness 500 helpless
| ness. 50 largely due 90 The course 81 deal
! ING ~ the federal government HSth their
ana the treaties Ia which u has been prom
| isod there arises the duty Of protection
| ppa with Il the power. This has aiwny'
! been recognized by the executive ana by
! con grpss and by this court, wbeuefcr the
! question has arisen The power II the gen
hral government over these remnants ~
| race once powerful. now weak and dimln
| ia4ed ia numbers Is necessary 10 their pro
| ierflgn ~ well as to The safety ~ those
/ among whom they dwell II must exist In
| that government, because II never has OK
iated anywhere else. because the theafci
( az It's exercise Is Within the geographical
| limits ~ the United States. because II ha'
| never been denied. and because II alenf
ran enforce it. laws On all the tribes
This case should and does settle the
I question hy the highest judicial authority
| ,sat congress having token Jurisdiction 0i
| crimes committed by Indians Within tbs
! limits II an Indian reservation. that tnris
4 dirfiou Il exclusive and that the stat
| laws do not extend - these csses. Ths
s,,ntarae court II Minnesota n 1893, II
/ safe ~ Campbell 3 MINI. "a. states
sbe true doe4rine and submits 10 the Juris
/ sietion NJ the federal courts 10 these cases
| In the proper spirit
IN that crA4. as IN the 81 -e ~ Doxtater
snrra decided bT the supreme court Of
I wisconsin the crime of which the STATE
kare tHrt -Hiettgo Strpr the In