The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-04-19
DECISION LET'S = +.
DOWN The BARS
INDIANS WITH ALLOTMENTS MAY
BUY LIQUOR. -
Excerpts from the Decision Of the
United States Supreme Court Which
Is Deeply Regretted in Regions Bor-
dering on Observation-Disclosures Of
Renewed Lawlessness. FIT.
Special to The Journal.

Special to The Journal ..
Sioux Falls, S. D., April 19.-Keen interest
in the exact nature Of the decision and as, to
how sweeping it was in character has been
manifested by thousands of persons in the north
west ever since the United States supreme court
made decision in which it was held in sub
stance that it was not violation OF the federal
statutes to sell liquor to an Indian who had
| taken his allotment Of land in severalty.
The decision makes radical departure from
the conditions which have existed for fifty years,
and places upon the counties and states the
police jurisdiction aover Indians who have taken
their allotments of land. For this reason 1t Is
Of vital interest to the people of every county
in South Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota and
other states in which Indians have taken their
allotlnents. a ."..[ III. 5i@ sr.-- 81,
Immediately upon information being received
that the supreme court had made such decision,
James D. Elliott, United States attorney for
South Dakota telegraphed to the clerk of the
federal supreme court for copy. This has just
been received. H.. =:
taken to the United States supreme court on
| a writ of habeas corpus from Kansas. Albert
Heff the petitioner, on Oct. Is last was Ncon-
victed in the United States court for the state
of Kansas under an indictment charging him
with unlawfully selling liquor to John Butler,
an Indian, Who it was ascertained, had taken
his allotment of land -. T. 70, So 4 =. +.s.z-
The decision says 1.-THE contention of the
petitioner is that the act of Jan. 3d. 1897, lis
unconstitutional as applied to the sales of liquor
to an . Indian who has received an allotment
act Of Feb. g. 1887 because it is provided in
| said act that each and every Indian to whom
allotments have been made shall be subject to
| the laws, both civil and criminal, of the state
in which they may reside; and further. that
John Butler, having, Is admitted. received
| an allotment of land in severalty and his patent
therefor under the provisions of the act Of con-
! gress Of Feb. 8, 1887, is no longer ward of
| the government. but citizen of the United
States and Of the state Of Kansas and subject
to the laws, both civil and criminal, Of said
state" <g
The court discusses at great length the relation
! between the government and the Indians, and
says in conclusion
eve are Of the opinion that when the United
States grants the privileges of citizenship to an
Indian, gives ito him the benefit Of and re-
qufres him toFbe subject to the laws both civil
and criminal. Of the state, it places him out
side the reach Of police regulations OH the part
of congress; that the emancipation from federal
control thus created cannot be set aside at the
| instance Of the government without the consent
of the individual Indian and the state, and that
this emancipation from federal control Is not
affected by the fact that the lands It has grant
| ed to the Indian are granted subject to con-
dition against alienation and incumbrance or
| the further fact that 1t guarantees to him an
interest in tribal or other property
It was understood that the decision was con-
Cured in by all the judges of the supreme bench,
but it develops that Justice Harlan dissented.
What It Means.
It would be impossible to exaggerate the ex-
tent of the decentralization which will result
among Indians who have taken their aHotments,
now that they, can. under the decision procure
liquor with as much ease as any white man.
For many years the government officials OF
South Dakota have waged an unceasing warfare
against unscrupulous whites and mixed-b1ood In
dams who have attempted to make a practice
of selling liquor to Indians, and numerous per-
sons have been convicted in the United States
court and sentenced to terms in the Sioux Falls
pen1tentiary or in county jails. @s
There win be more: good Indians in the
next two or three years. significantly remarked
a resident OF that part Of the state adjoining
the Indian reservations on the Missouri river
than ever before"
BY this was meant that Indians who had
taken their allotments and who could now pro-
cure liquor from bootleggers or at licensed sa-
looms, would while under the influence Of liquor
and while surrounded by their brethren engage
in drunken carousals in the smaller towns near
the homes of the Indians. and that the only
way in which the whites could maintain order
and protect their homes would be to shoot down
the drunken redmen.
I It Is q Well-known fact that drunken Indian
is a crazy Indian. When under the influence
Eof liquor they revert to the savage condition
of their forefathers. and are ready for any dev-
iltry from attempting to rum the border
towns to shooting down other Indians and even