UNITED STATES V. EARL.
(Circuit Court, D. Oregon. June 26,1883,)
l.'INDTAN-W'HEN UNDER CHARGE OF AN AGENT.
When a tribe of indians is placed under the charge of an Indian agent by treaty or otherwise, each member of such tribe is under the charge of such agent, within the purview of section 3129 of the Statutes, and no member thereof can dissolve his tribal relation or e,("apc from such charge· by absenting himself from such or othcl'I\'lse, Without the consent of thl! United States.
An Indian hoy in Oregon, who left the locality of his tribe and lived with:l. white family until his tribe had entered into tl'eaty relations with the United States and gone upon a reservation in pursuance of such treaty, and until he . was 23 years of age, and then went to live up"n such reservation as a member of his tribe, could not thereafter, by simply absenting himself from the reservation. dissolve his trilml relation or cease to be under the charge of the agent of such reservation. 3.
INTERcounSE WITH INDIANS.
It is the duty of congress to regulate the intercourse with the Inllians, and to that end they may provide for punishing the giving of spirituous liquors to them on or off a reservation within or without a stale.
Motion for New Trial. Information for disposing of spirituous liquor to an Indian. On April 28, 1883, the district attorney, by the leave of the court, filed an information in the district court, charging the defendant with the disposing of spirituous liquor in this district to Jake Thomas, an Indian under charge of an Indian agent of the United States, 011 March 1, 1883, contrary to section 2139 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that every person who disposes of spirituous liquor to any Indian "under the charge of any Indian superintendent or agent" shall be punished as therein provided. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the information, and the cause was thereupon removed to the circuit court and there tried before the district judge with no jury. On May 17th the jury, under the instruction of tile court, found the defendant guilty as charged in the information. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground of error in the instruction to the jury, and the motion was heard on June 26th before Mr. J nstice FIELD and the district judge. James F. Watson, for the United States. Charles B. Bellinger, for defendant. D£ADY, J. On June 25, 1855, a treaty was negotiated with "the confederated tribes and bands of Indians residing in middle Oregon," at Wasco, Oregon, and ratified by the senate, March 8, 1869.· 12 St. 963. Among these tribes were the Wascoes, belonging to the country about the Dalles of the Columbia. The treaty provided for the cession to the United States of the country belonging to these tribes, and the establishment of a reservation therein for their "exclusive use," commonly called "the Warm Spring reservation," to which they were to remove within a year from the ratification of the treaty.
On the trial it was admitted that the defendant kept a saloon at the Dalles, about 30 miles from the agency, and there disposed of whisky to the Indian, Jake Thomas, as alleged in the information. It also appeared from the testimony of said Indian that his parents belonged to the Wasco tribe of Indians, and that he was born near the Dalles about the year] 845, and that about 1855 he came down to the Wallamet valley with his parents, where he lived with them near Oregon City, at the residence of Col. Jennings, a well-known citizen. Thomas' father carried an express for the "government" in the Cayuse war of 1847. Gen. Palmer, when superintendent of Indian affairs, transferred the father to the "Grand Round reservation," as 'fhomas says, in 1861; but as Palmer was not superintendent after the early part of 1857, and the Indian is more likely to remember the name of the superintendent than the date of the transaction, such transfer must have taken place during Palmer's superintendency, and probably in 1856 or 1857, as the Grand Round reserva· tion was not formally established until the latter year. 11 St. 183; Ex. Order, June 30, 1857. In about a year he returned to CoL Jennings' place and died; but Thomas remained with the latter, except a aehort interval spent in running au a steam-boat to the Dalles in 18li2, until 1868, when he went to live upon the Warm Spring reservation, where he remained about four years-partof the time engaged in teaching. In the winter of he served three months with a companyof Indian scouts from the reservation in the :Modoc war. Then he was in the Wallamet valley, knocking about on steam-boats and in tavern kitchens for two years, and the two following years he spent upon the reservation. Since then he has lived about the Dalles until last fall, when he went upon the retiervation, where he has a sister, but no house, and remained there until this spring. During the latter period he bought and sold a piece of land. He has a family, that now reside about five miles from the Dalles. He also has a band of horses upon the reservation, and is allowed the privileges of the same as a Wasco Indian. When' on the reservation he does Dot appear to have drawn any annuity or supplies, but says he could have done so if he wanted to; and that the reason he did not draw any supplies the last time he was there, was, "the treaty had run out." The court instructed the jury that the disposition of the spirituous liquor to the Indian being admitted, the only ot.her quef.tion in the case is, "Was he au Indian under the charge of an agent?" and upon this be said:
"If you belip.ve the testimony of Thomas himself, then you ought to find the defenllant guilty, upon t'lllt testilIl'lIIy he is, and was at the date of the disposition to him of the liquurin question, an Indian of the Indian at the 'V arm ::;pring
To this instruction there was an exception, and counsel for the defendant now contend that it was erroneuus, and therefore the motion for a new trial ought to be allo\\eJ.
The Wasco tribe of Indians were bound by the treaty of Jl1ne 25, 1855, made with their "chiefs and head men," to go upon this reservation, and be subject to, under the charge and care of, an agent appointed by the United States for them. 'rhis convention included and applied to every member of the tribe in the same seUlle that a treaty duly concluded between the English and American governments does to the subjects and citizens of such powers. 1\1ore than this, the United States claims and has righfully exercised the power to place Indians upon reservations, or witllin circumscribed localities, and appoint agents to take charge of them there, as its wards, without any treaty to that effect, but simply upon its own volition, manifested by an act of congress or other proper department of the government. 'rhis treaty and appointment of an agent to take charge of the Indians upon the reservation thereby established, included Thomas, a'member of the Watico tribe of Indians, and thereafter we do not think it was in his power to relieve himself from the operation of the one or the authority of the other without the consent of the United States. The government of the latter is charged with the duty of regulating the intercourse between the Indian tribes and the other inhabitants of the country, and to this end it may inaugurate and pursue that policy in regard to sucll intercourtie as may be for the best interest of all concerued. But it may be said that, for the purpose of tbis case, the Indian should not only be under the charge of an ag.3nt potentially, but also as a matter of fact, and that whenever an Indian is allowed to be much or most of his time aW:1Y from the reservation, doing for himself, he id not to be considered as under the charge of an agent. The fact that the Indian was off the reserration when he obtamed the liquor from the defendant is tather suggested than asserted as some kind of an excuse for the act. But the defendant was not obliged or induced to sell this Indian liqllor because he was not upon the reservation. It is a well-known fact that the Indians of Oregon, as a rule, belong to some reservation liy virtue of treaty stipulations, and are actually or potentially under the charge of an agent; and whoever ?isposes of spirituous liquor to anyone of them does so prima facie 1ll violation of Jaw. As was said by Mr. Justice MILLER, in U. S. v. Ilolliday,3 Wall. 415 :
.. 'fhe policy of the act is the protl'ction of Indians who are, by treaty or otherwise, nnrler the pupilage uf the government, from the debasing int1npnce of the use uf spirits; anti it is not easy to perceive why that plllicy poison, should not require their Ilreservation from this, to them, When they are outside of a reservation, as well as within it. Tile evil effects are the same in uuth cases."
If it is admitted that this Indian was a member ofthe Wasco tribe at the date of the treaty of 1855, he was within its operation, and subject in law to the charge of the agents residing at the Warm Spring reser.vatiun since its ratification, unless his tribal relation has
since been dissolved. The recognition or dissolution: of the t'ribal lation is a matter in which the courts usually follow the action of the polHical departments of the government. U. S. v. Holliday, sUJira, 4]9. It does not appear that the tribal relation of Thomas has been diEsolved by any act of the government, or that it has in any way COlloonted to or acquiesced in any such purpose on his part. And, without such consent, we do not think the relation can be dissolved, as against the United States, after being recognized by it. But in the absence of any law or regulation made 01' authorized by congress to that effect, mere absence from the reservation, however prolonged, is not proof of such consent, because it may occur without the approval of the government, and it may take place with the consent of the agent for some lawful purpose, and with intent to return. It may be admitted that an Indian who had separated from his tribe before the government took cognizance of it, as such, by treaty or otherwise, and did not return thereto, or claim or enjoy, at the hands of the government, any right or privilege as a member of such tribe, is not under the charge of an agent, within the meaning of section 2139 of the Revised Statutes. But in the case at bar, although the Indian was apparently separated from his tribe at the date and ratification of the treaty of 1855, by the act of his father, yet soon after coming to man's estate he voluntarily went upon the reSel"vation therein provided for, and claimed and was allowed the privileges of such a reservation, as a member of the Wasco tribe of Indians, Vlhero he has since remaineu quite half the time, including a period so late as the last winter, and still keeps his stock there. Indeed, the absence of this Indian from this reservation since 1868 is probably owing to the fact that he is thereby enabled to get whisky from the defendant and others engaged in that business. Under the circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that Thomas is under the charge of the Indian agent at Warm Spring; since 1868, at least, when he went to live upon that reservation. The motion for a new trial is therefore overruled, and the defendant ordered to appear for sentence.
See FoJ"ty-three Gallons of Cognac Brandy, 11 S. C. 14 FED. REP. 531, and note, 540..
47. and note, 51;
CLARK POMACE-HOLDER CO. V. FERGUSON.
CLARK POMACE-HoLDER CO. 'V. FERGUSON.
(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.
PATENTS-COMBINATION OF OLD ELEMENTS.
To constitute a valid combination, where the elements are old, all the component parts thereof must so enter into the combination that each qualifies the other, and a new result is produced by the combined action of all the component parts. .
SAME-INVENTION OF NEW PLACE FOR OLD THING NOT PATENTABLE.
To authorize a patent the law requires the invention of a new thing. It is not satisfied by inventiuz a new place for an old thing without cnange of resUlt.
Proof of but one instance of public use more than two years prior to the application for a patent is sufficient to defeat it.
SAME-LETTEUS PATENT INVALID.
Letters patent issued to John Clark on the sixth day of February, 1877, for an alleged improvement in cheese-formers for cider-presses are invalid, as the combination, if a valid combination, was not patentable, and was in public use more than two years before the application. .
Walter E. Ward and J. Van Santvoord, for complainant. William II. King, for defendant. Can, J. This is an equity action for infringement of letters patent issued to John Clark on the sixth day of February, 1877, for an alleged improvement in cheese-formers for cider-presses. . The patent was subsequently assigned to the complainant. The patentee in the specification declares: .. The object I ha.ve in view is in laying up a ·cheese' for the cider-press. where each layer is folded up in a cloth,' to secure uniformity of thickness of all the layers in the mass or cheese, and thus secure uniform pressure on its entire area, and to avoid all tendency to break the pomace frames or racks. To this end it consists in the employment of a guide-frame. in comuination with extended pomace-racks, as more fully hereinafter set forth." The claim is in the following words: . .. The guide-frame, D, in combination with an extended pomape-rack, and a cloth to inclose a layer of pomace therein, substantially as described." In the Cider-milkers' Manual, published in 1869 by J. S. Buell, the author, after stating the advantages to be derived from the substitution of cloths for straw, as used in the old method of cider-making, ·proceeds to describe, at page 47, a plan which suggested itself to him in the fall of 1868, and which, in its essential particulars, is similar to .the process described in the patent. After explaining how the frames are made, by placing lath or thin boards near together ane. nailing to them similar boards placed at right angles, he'proceeds in these words:' , ' . . "These frames are designated and known as pomace-frames, and are used in laying up a cheese as follows: First place upon the platform of the press one of these frames, seeing that it covers the entire inuer surface of tllecurb.