{"character_count": 5922, "word_count": 1023, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9666000008583069], "ccnet_perplexity": [411.20001220703125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
traced and compared, in orderto ascertain how far the position can be sustained by them. By the act of Congress "to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians, and to pre- serve peace on the frontiers" approved on the Both of March, 1902, the government of the United States assumed jurisdiction over the Indian country, by enumerating many acts which should be punished as offences if con- mitted within that country, and by authoriz- ing certain courts designated in the statute to take cognizance of them. twill be perceived however, that most of the offences thus de- nounced are such as should be committed by white men, and that in the enumeration in that an statute is not included murder committed by

 Indian within the Indian boundary on the body

 off white man. ltis presumed therefore that

 the statute of March Both, 1902, can have no application to case like that at bar On the 3rd day of March, 1925, was passed

 the law entitled " an act more effectually to

 provide for the punishment of certain crimes

 committed against the United States" The

 crimes enumerated in this act so far as locality

 beyond the limits of the States is imparted to

 them by the law, will be found to belong

 naturally and properly to the maritime Juris-

 diction of the Union, or to be in some degree

 connected herewith by operation of express

 law. The 14th section of the above statute

 contains the following clause at the close of

 that section: ssAnd the trial of all offences

 which shall be committed upon the high seas,

 or elsewhere, out of the limits of any State

 or District, shall be in the District where the

 offender is apprehended, or into which he may be first broughto The offence charged in the indictment being committed in the In- dian country, and consequently out of the limits of State or District, 1t Is insisted for the prosecution that the clause of the law above mentioned brings 1t within the luris-

 diction of the Circuit Court for this District,

 the accused having been first brought therein.

 With regard to this argument it may be, in the

 first place, remarked, that implications of

 power are scarcely allowable in any cases in

 relation to the Courts of the United Sates-

 they have repeatedly even in civil cases, been

 adjudged to be Courts of limited, though not

 of inferior jurisdiction, and it. has been in

 like manner required that their jurisdiction

 must in every instance be apparent on the face

 of the pleadings. A fortiori then would such

 implications be discountenanced in penal or

 criminal proceedings, and still more would

 they be disclaimed where the issues of life and death are involved. But conceding for

 the present that such implications could be permitted, it may be asked whether there is not enough on the face of the act of 1925, fully to answer and satisfy the clause of the

 l4th section, without attempting to extend that clause so as to embrace other matter than that which the statute expressly and plainly embraces Amongst the offences of

 which the statute was treating, many of them

 were of character which might be consum- mated within the limits of the States and Districts of the Union; others, as for instance, those touching the maritime rights ofthe nation and its citizens, were of nature to be con- mitted beyond those limits, such as the de- struction of ships on the high seas, and in foreign ports, and the abandoning of seamen in foreign countries-for these delinquences it was necessary to designate forum, and public convenience pointed to the State or District in which the offender might be appre- hended, or that into which he should happen to be first brought. This interpretation of the statute appears to satisfy both its language and it's reason, and to forbid the forcing it's provisions to purposes within neither its natu- ral nor necessary scope.

 On the Both of June, 1884, there was pas sed an act of Congress with title similar to the act of 1902, viz: ssan act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers.'' In most of its provisions, this act Is literal transcript from the act of 1902, and like the latter law, it comprises no where in the enumeration of offences, the crime of murder by an Indian on the body of a white man committed within the Indian country but the act of 1884, in its 24th and 25th sections, contains the fol- lowing provisions: It declares, '' that so much of the laws of the United States, as provides for the punishment ofcrimes committed within any place within the sole and eGclusiue 1uriS- diction of the United States, shall be in force Tn the Indian country-provided that the same shall not extend to crimes committed by one Indian against the person or property of ano- ther Indian; ;" and '' that for the sole purpose of carrying into effect that act, all that part of the Indian country west of the Mississippi river, that is bounded north by the north line of lands assigned to the Osage tribe of Indians, produced east to the State of Missouri, west oy tIle meAlCdil posseSSioHS, SouLn Dy Reu river, and east by the west line of the terri tory of Arkansas and State of Missouri, shall be, and the same is hereby annexed to the territory of Arkansas" The region thus de- scribed, is admitted to be Indian country, and it is within its limits that the crime alledged in the indictment is charged to have been committed. As cognizance of crimes and offences generally, and certainly of the crime of murder by whomsoever committed, within forts, dock-yards, arsenals, on the high seas, and in all other places within the enclusiue jurisdiction of the United States, is unques- tionably given to the courts of the United States designated by lawfor the trial of those and as the Indian territory above described has been placed under this exclu- sive jurisdiction of the courts of the United