The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1911-12-15

cred it by Friedman & Co. From this
judgment the company appealed to the
circuit court of appeals for the Eighth
circuit, and the court Of appeals now
has reversed the decision of Judge
Rogers and directed the lower court
to dismiss the suit In this opinion it
is held that the act of January 80. 1897
(2f Stat. 506-07), is still in force as to
what was formerly the Indian Terri
tory and applies to and prohibits inter
state shipments of intoxicating liquors
to consignees residing therein.
"The opinion is not entirely clear
as to whether it applies to the entire
limits of what was formerly the Indian |
Territory or only to land to which the
title is in the government of the Unit
ed States, the Indian tribes. or allotted
lands as to which there are restric-
tions upon alienation. This uncer-
tainty perhaps arises, to certain ex-
tent, from the failure of Friedman &
Co., to state with certainty any of the
facts in relation to the town of Man
ford.
"The decision is, however. capable of
being interpreted so as to restore. so
fas the Indian Territory is concerned,
approximately the conditions existing
Iprior to statehood In addition to the
restoration of conditions existing prior
to statehood under sections 239-240 of
the federal penal code, packages con-
Itaining intoxicating liquors rendered
for shipment interstate must show the
cnaracter and quantity of the contents.
This would certainly make prohibition
: effective in what was formerly Indian
| Territory.
The United States Express company
had uniformly refused to accept intox.
icating liquors consigned to the limits
of an Indian reservation or within
4 what is known as Indian country, In
| this particular case the express COM
, pany announced that it simply wanted
to ascertain the law, for the purpose of
complying with it, 1t expressed will.
ingness to abide by the judgment OF
:. the court The action OF the circuit
; court of appeals in ordering the pro
n ceeding dismissed will afford an op
lportunity to Friedman and company
: If they desire, to do SO to have the ac
0 ton fthe circuit court of appeals re
l. viewed by The supreme court of the
e United States.
e when this case was presented tC
n Judge Rogers, Fred Caldwell, enforce
Iment attorney, was invited by the ex
O lpress company to appear and presen
l. the states contentious. When the cas'
T. was presented to the circuit court o
e appeals, the attorney general was in
d yited to file a brief in the cause pre-
lsenting the states contentious.
If 1.-The attorney general, while In sym
IS pathy with the express company, di'
$ not do so as he was of the opinion tha
n because of the condition of the recor,
N the express company could not expee
K to sustain it's contention 1t is neec
III less to say that if this opinion stand
d that it will work a revolution in th
a. conditions existing in what was TO
merly the Indian territory The opil
ge ion bases the right of the goyernmer
le to continue the act of 1897 in force a
& to the Indian territory upon its pari
O. mount authority to protect the India
I'd against the use of Intoxicating liquors
ST. whether such Indian may or may nc
IN reside within the boundary Of an
ne state
I'd 1t also is pointed out that there ais
I'd is a provision that the state capiti
lg shall not be removed from Guthri
RI until 1913, and that this has been 81
aside. Able attorneys have expresse
IN the opinion, however, that while til
of supreme court waived jurisdiction Q
of the capital question, it might not q
he SO on the liquor proposition, as it d
%. irectly affects the Indians, and the fe
al eral government still feels respons
ed lbility toward the tribes, and the aid
mt the government in keeping whiskC
ed laway from the Indians has been pied
fie ed.
la II the case is carried to the supren
ed court of the United States, as It mf
M be- and that judicial body sustains Il
by decision of the appellate court, inte
at preting the question to mean that j
y; uor cannot be shipped to the India
M territory part of the state, very
ia teresting condition will be broug
nd about. Such action would mean th
an the local option bill which will be v'
lse ed upon next year. II adopted, cam
XII become effective in the eastern pa
to lof the state II will mean also tn
or the prohibition question in all that s.