Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

United States v. Sutton

215 U.S. 291

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1909-12-20
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Brewer, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. The question whether the indictment charges any offense against the laws of the United States involves the validity of the act of January 30, 1897, as applied to the facts stated, and therefore the case is one properly before us under the act providing for writs of error in certain instances in criminal cases. Ch. 2564,34 Stat. 1246; United States v. Keitel, 211 U.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Sutton. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
48 opinions
UNITED STATESv. SUTTON,215 U.S. 291(1909)
30 S.Ct. 116
UNITED STATESv. SUTTON.
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
WASHINGTON.
No. 312.
Submitted October 15, 1909.
Decided December 20, 1909.
United Statesv.Celestine, ante, p. 278, followed, as to continuance of jurisdiction of United States over offenses committed within the limits of an Indian reservation. The Indians, as wards of the Government, are the beneficiaries of the prohibition against the introduction of liquor into Indian country; and, under the Washington enabling act, jurisdiction and control over Indian lands remains in the United States, and Congress has power to prohibit and punish the introduction of liquor therein.Page 292The limits of an Indian reservation are not changed by allotments in severalty during the trust period, and, where the lands allotted are subject to restrictions against alienation and to defeasance, the prohibition against liquor continues to be effective.
THE defendants were indicted in the District Court of the
United States for the Eastern District of Washington for
introducing liquor into the Indian country, as thus stated in the
indictment:
"To wit, into and upon a certain Indian allotment No. 670,
within the limits of the boundary of the Yakima Indian
Reservation, in the Eastern District of Washington, which said
allotment had theretofore been allotted to a certain Indian, a
member of the Yakima tribe of Indians, named George Wesslike,
under and by virtue of the provision of the act of Congress of
February 8, 1887, entitled `An act to provide for the allotment
of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations, and
to extend the protection of the laws of the United States and the
Territories over the Indians, and for other purposes,'
(24 Stat. 388,) said allotment being then and now one held in trust by the
Government for said allottee and being inalienable by the said
allottee without the consent of the United States."
A demurrer was filed, and on that demurrer the following facts
were agreed to:
"1. That the Yakima Indian Reservation, in the Eastern
District of Washington, is inhabited by the Yakima and other
Indians under the general charge and control of an Indian agent
and superintendent of the United States.
"2. That prior to September 3, 1908, a very large number of
allotments of land within said reservation had been made to
Indians entitled thereto, which said allotments had been made and
allotted under the by virtue of the provision of the act of
Congress of February 8, 1887, known as the general allotment act.
"3. That allotment No. 670, described in the indictment, is a
part of and within the boundaries of the Yakima Indian
Page 293
Reservation, and the same had been made and allotted, and the
usual trust patent thereto issued to the allottee named in the
indictment under the provision of the act of February 8, 1887,
prior to September, 1908.
"4. That the trust limitation has not yet expired and the
title to said allotment is still being held in trust by the
Government; that the title to said allotment is not alienable by
the allottee without the consent of the United States.
"5. That on or about September 3, 1908, the defendants did go
on and upon said allotment described in the indictment, taking
and carrying with them certain ardent spirits and intoxicating
liquor, to wit, alcohol, in a demijohn and flasks."
The indictment was founded on the act of January 30, 1897,
29 Stat. 506, which provides:
"That . . . any person who shall introduce or attempt to
introduce any malt, spirituous, or vinous liquor, including beer,
ale, and wine, or any ardent or intoxicating liquor of any kind
whatsoever into the Indian country, which term shall include any
Indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in
trust by the Government, or while the same shall remain
inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United
States, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than sixty
days, and by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars for the
first offense and not less than two hundred dollars for each
offense thereafter."
The Yakima Reservation was established under the treaty of
June 9, 1855,12 Stat. 951, which, in article 2, provides:
"All which tract shall be set apart, and, so far as necessary,
surveyed and marked out, for the exclusive use and benefit of
said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as an Indian
reservation; nor shall any white man, excepting those in the
employment of the Indian Department, be permitted to reside upon
the said reservation without permission of the tribe and the
superintendent and agent.
* * * * * * * *
Page 294
"ARTICLE VI. The President may, from time to time, at his
discretion, cause the whole or such portions of such reservation
as he may think proper, to be surveyed into lots, and assign the
same to such individuals or families of the said confederated
tribes and bands of Indians as are willing to avail themselves of
the privilege, and will locate on the same as a permanent home,
on the same terms and subject to the same regulations as are
provided in the sixth article of the treaty with the Omahas, so
far as the same may be applicable."
The demurrer was sustained, and thereupon the Government
brought the case here on writ of error under the act of March 2,
1907, c. 2564,34 Stat. 1246.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harrfor the United States.

There was no appearance or brief for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The question whether the indictment charges any offense against the laws of the United States involves the validity of the act of January 30, 1897, as applied to the facts stated, and therefore the case is one properly before us under the act providing for writs of error in certain instances in criminal cases. Ch. 2564,34 Stat. 1246;United Statesv.Keitel,211 U.S. 370,397.

We have recently considered, inUnited Statesv.Celestine,ante, the question of the jurisdiction of the United States over offenses committed within the limits of a reservation, as also the effect of allotments therein upon its continued existence, and further discussion of those matters is unnecessary. The limits of the Yakima Reservation were not changed by virtue of the allotments that are referred to in the stipulationPage 295of facts. The lands allotted were subject to restrictions against alienation, and the title which was conferred by the allotments was subject to defeasance. Sixth Article, Treaty with the Omahas,10 Stat. 1043-5;United Statesv.Celestine. The offense charged was not one committed by a white man upon a white man,United Statesv.McBratney,104 U.S. 621;Draperv.UnitedStates,164 U.S. 240, or by an Indian upon an Indian,UnitedStatesv.Celestine, ante, but it was the introduction of liquor into an Indian reservation. In this offense neither race or color are significant. The Indians, as wards of the Government, are the beneficiaries, but for their protection the prohibition is against all, white man and Indian alike. Legislation of this nature has been for a long time in force. Fourth sec., chap. 174, Laws 1832,4 Stat. 564; § 2139, Rev. Stat. If the Yakima Reservation were within the limits of a Territory there would be no question of the validity of the statute under which this indictment was found, but the contention is that the offense charged is of a police nature and that the full police power is lodged in the State, and by it alone can such offenses be punished. By the second paragraph of § 4 of the enabling act with respect to the State of Washington, (c. 180,25 Stat. 677,) the people of that State disclaimed all right and title "to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States." Construing this, in connection with other provisions of the enabling act, it was held inDraperv.United States,164 U.S. 240, that it did not deprive the State of jurisdiction over crimes committed within a reservation by others than Indians or against Indians, following in thisUnited Statesv.McBratney,104 U.S. 621. But in terms "jurisdiction and control" over Indian lands remain in the United States, and there being nothing in thePage 296section withdrawing any other jurisdiction than that named inDraperv.United States, undoubtedly Congress has the right to forbid the introduction of liquor and to provide punishment for any violation thereof.Couture, Jr., v.United States,207 U.S. 581. It is true that only aper curiamopinion was filed in that case, and the judgment was affirmed on the authority ofUnited Statesv.Rickert,188 U.S. 432;McKayv.Kalyton,204 U.S. 458, but an examination of the record shows that its facts are similar to those in the present case. See also an opinion by Shiras, District Judge, inUnited Statesv.Mullin, 71 F. 682, and one by Circuit Judge Van Devanter, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, inRainbowv.Young, 161 F. 835.

Without pursuing the discussion further, we are of opinion that the District Court erred in its ruling, and the judgment isReversed.