The Bemidji daily pioneer., 1915-08-18
Judge Stanton Rules That State Court
Has Proper Ju' & >tion But 1855
Document is ,e Law"
HELD so UNDER CON- 9e ,1o1
Restraining Order is Annulled
Grand Rapids Liquor Men Will Be
Required to Close Saloons at Once
UPHOLDS HIGH COURT DECISION
Says Treaty, However Inconsistent or
Unreasonable It May Appear, Must
Stand-Remedy is Legislative.

Stand-Remedy is Legislative.
Holding that the objection to his
jurisdiction cannot be sustained, but
disposing of the main question by
denying the application for an in
junction, Judge G. w. Stanton this
morning filed his decision in the case
of twelve Grand Rapids saloon men
in which they sought to prevent the
officers Of the Federal Indian depart
ment from enforcing the provisions of
the 1855 Indian treaty.
There being general belief that a
decision in favor Of the liquor men
might play prominent part in the
opening of the entire "dry" zone,
much interest was attached to the
hearing. Arguments in the cases, in
which the saloon men sought to re-
strain Chief Special Officer Henry A.
Larson and several of his assistants
from molesting the saloons in Grand
Rapids were concluded late Tuesday
afternoon.
Both Elmer E. Mcdonald, of this
city, and w. w. Barron, of Grand
Rapids, argued at length in support
Of their contention that the injunc-
tion should be granted, and Alfred
Jaques, United States district attor-
ney, strenuously maintained, first,
that the court had no jurisdiction,
and second, that no injunction should
be granted.
Saloons Must Close.
This chapter in the Indian lid"
proceedings being closed it is prcb-
able that the saloons of Grand Rapids
will cease existence forthwith and
that whatever liquor remains in that
village will be shipped Immediately
outside Of the Indian treaty zone.
Federal officers in Bemidji today
would make no comment as to what
action they would take in the matter.
Attorney Mcdonald, representing the
saloon men, said he did not know
whether the case would be carried
further.
Annuls Restraining Order.
In his order denying the injunc-
tion Judge Stanton inserted clause
which annuls and discharges the re-
straining order heretofore in force.
In his memorandum Judge Stanton
says:
In this action the plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the enforcement in the Village
of Grand Rapids, Itasca county, Min
nesota, of the provisions of Article
VII of the treaty of 1855 with the
Minnesota Chippewa Indians, which
prohibits the manufacture and intro.
duction of liquor into the territory
ceded by that treaty. The present
application is for a temporary injunc-
tion restraining the officers of the In
dian department from interfering
with the plaintiff in the conduct of
his saloon at Grand Rapids during
the tendency of this action.
Court Has Jurisdiction.
The first question arises upon the
objection of defendants to the juris-
dictiOn of this court, the contention
being that the control of a federal
officer is a matter for the federal
courts only. This position is, it seems
to me, untenable. There can be no
question, in the light of a long line
of decisions, both federal and state,
but that an injunction will issue from
a state court to prevent a United
States officer from unlawfully assum-
ing powers over property in such
manner as to infringe upon or vio-
late the rights of citizen. In such
case the federal and state courts have
undoubted concurrent jurisdiction.
Cannot Be Restrained.
So, the real question now presented
is whether, under the law, and the
facts presented at this hearing, this
court, in the exercise of sound discre-
tion, should grant temporary in
junction.
1t is an elementary rule Of law thai
an officer who does only what the Law
commands cannot be restrained b!
injunction. 1t is part of our funda
mental law as expressed in the Con
stitution of the United States, tha
this constitution and the laws O.
the United States which shall be pass
ed in pursuance thereof, and al
treaties made, or which shall be made
under the authority of the Unite'
States, shall be the supreme law o
the land, and the judges in ever,
state shall be bound thereby" r-
Supreme Law Of Land"
Now, the Indian treaty OF 1875
however inconsistent and unreason
able it's provisions may appear as ap
nlied To the present conditions, Is st1i