. to me to be clear that he came to his death through other causes than "external, violent, and accidental means, within the intent and meaning" of the policy in suit, and I must so find. Upon this ground there must be judgment for the defendantj and it is so ordered.
NORTON and others t7.CITY OF PORTSMOUTH.
(OirlJuit Oourt, D. N6fJ)
TRIAL-FEDERAl, PRACTICE-SECTro:N:914. REV. ST.
Where a defendant. in an action brought in a circuit court of the United States. files several pleas, the court mar direct the issues of fact arising on one of the pleas to be tried first. accordmg to the law of the state where the court sits, Dy virtue of section 914 of the Revised Statutes, under which the practice in the federal courts is made to conform to that of the state where the court is held.
At Law. The defendant, having been granted leave to plead double, filed several pleas--FJirst, the general issue; second, the statute of limitations; third, a release of all claims, causes of action, etc., under the patent granted to Knibly, and set forth in the declaration; fourth, a plea denying infringement, etc.; fifth, license; sixth, public use of the alleged invention, etc. i-and asked the court for a hearing on the third plea, on the ground that if that is sustained by proof there is an end of the case, and the time and expense involved on the trial, which is likely to be a protracted one, would in consequence be saved. Harvey D. Hadlock, for plaintiff. William L. Foster, for defendants. COLT, J. I am of opinion that the motion of the defendant for an order of court that the issues of fact arising upon the third plea may be first tried, should be granted. By the law of New Hampshire, as laid down in the recent case of Owen v. Weston, 63 N. H. 599, 4 Atl. Rep. 801, whether all or a part of the issues in any action should be tried at one time, is a question of justice and convenience. This being an action at law, I see no reason, under section 914 ofthe Revised Statutes, why the practice of the United States courts should not conforril to that of the state. In the present case, I am satisfied that justice and convenience call for the trial first of the issues arising upon defendant's third plea, and that the defendant should not be put to the costs, expense, and trouble of a trial on the merits until a determination of the questions raised by that plea. '
IN BE SAR QUAR.
SAR - QUAR.
May 8, 1886.)
A custom or rite prevailing among the uncivilized tribes of Indians in Alaska, whereby slaves are bought, sold. and held in servitude, against their free will, and subjected to ill treatment at the pleasure of the owner, is con· trary to theitihirteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, and the "Civil Rights Bill" of 1866, and a person so held in slavery will be reo , leased by order of the court upon writ of habea8 corpUB. INDIANS-GoVERNMENT OF-TEltRITORY OF ALASKA" The _ tJ,'eaty of March 30, 1867, by which the territory of Alaska was cede4 to the United States, made the uncivilized tribes thereIn subject to such laws and as the United States might adopt in regard to them.
8.SAME-'LIQ,UOR TRAFFIC-"!NDIAN COUNTRY."
The act of congress of March 3, 1873, extending to Alaska two sections of the'act of June 30, 1834, known as the" Indian Intercourse Laws, " and relating principally to the interdiction of the liquor traffic among the Indians, is to be construed to make said territory "Indian Country" only to the extent of the prohibited commerce, and did not put the Alaska Indians on a general foot· Ing with Indians in other parts of the United States. 4. SAME-ORDINANCE OF 1787. No treaty having ever been made with the Alaska Indians or tribal inde· pendence recognized, they are not to be regarded as within the operation of the custom and policy of the government arising out of the ordinance of 1'78'7, relating to the north·west territory, whereby the Indian tribes of the United States have been treated &S free and independent within theirrespect· ive territories, governed by their tribal laws and customs in all matters pertaining to their internal affairs. 5. SAlI:E-CRI:IIONAL JURISDICTION- OVER-CITIZENSHIP. The Alaska Indians, while not citizens within the full meaning of the term. are dependent subjects, amenable to the penal laws of the United States, and Bubject to the jurisdiction of its courts. The act of congress of March 3, 1885, making all Indians amenable to the criminal laws of the United States for the offenses therein designated, is to be regarded 8S aiding this cOnstruction of the law, and the act of March 3, 1871, prohibiting future recognition of tdbal independence among the Indians, is to be construed in the same Mnnection.
HalJeaa CorpU8. W. Clark and P. J. Berry, for petitioner. M. D. Ball, for respondent.
DAWSON, J. Petitioner alleges that he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the respondent, who claims to own him as a slave and chattel, and prays to be released from the restraint imposed upon him by the respondent. '. nespondent, byway of return to the _ writ, in substance alleges that both he and the petitioner are Indians of the 'l'hlinket .or Kalo· sian race; that they are uncivilized natives; that they and their ancllstors have inhabited the Alaskan shores from time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, -in oommunities independent of any other law, authority, or jurisdiction except that established by their own rules and customs; that the buying, selling, and holding of slaves is one of the rules and customs of their race and tribe; that the civil authorities
]1ave no jurisdiction over them; and impliedly asserting that Alaska is Indian country) and that theras inhabitants are subject to no law, save the usages and customs of Indians. The issue presented is important, and necessarily inVi)lved an examination of the treaty by which this vast region was ceded to the United States by his ma:jesty) the emperor of all the Russias,as well as certain acts of congress in relation to Alaska. The third article of the treaty of March 30, 1867, is as follows: .. The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their ahoice. reservin g their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three yearsjbut, if they should prefer to remain in territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitt.ed to the enjoyment of all the rights, actvantag,es, and immunities of. citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property. and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regUlations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country."
'.It will be observed that the power to make laws and regulations; for the government ofihe Indians is expressly reserved in the treaty to the United States, thus indicating very clearly that they were even then garded as sUbject to some power superior to their own untamed inclinations. Pursuant to the power. teserved .in the treaty, congress, on the twenty-seventh day of July, 1868, extended thelawsof the United, States relating to customs, commerce, and navigation to and over all the mainland, islands, and waters of Alaska) and confe'rred upon the president of the United States power to restrict and regulate or prohibit the .importation and use of fire-arms, ammunition, and distilled spirits into and within the territory. Sections 1954, 1955, Rev. St. On the third day of March, 1873, congress amended the two sections referred to by extending over this territory two sections of the act of June 30, 1834)known ai> the-"Inrlian Intercourse Laws," relating almost exclusively to the interdiction of the liquor traffic among the Indians) and to the distillation of ardent spirits in the Indian country. But I cannot infer that when congress, in express terms, extended two sections of the same act, and made them applicable to a certain people, it was ' intended to extend the whole act. The presumption is clear that by singling out., mentioning, and ex· tending two sections only, the intention was to withhold or exclude fr0111 the territory all the other sections of the act. If I am correct in this conclusion, it necessarily follows that only as to the prohibited commerce mentioned in the sections referred to, can Alaska be regarded as Indian country. 14 Ops. Attys. Gen. 290; 16 Ops. AUy!!. Gen. 141. What, then, is the legal status of Alaska Indians? Many of them have connected themselves with the mission churches) manifest a great · interest in the education of their youth, and have adopted civilizeq. habits of life. Their condition has been gradually changing until the attributes of their original sovereignty have been lost, and they are becoming more and more dependent upon and subject to the laws .of the
IN ltE SAH QUAH.
United States, and yet they are not citizens within the full meaning of that term. From the organization of the government to the present time, the various Indian tribes of the United States have been treated as free and independent within their respective territories, governed by their tribal laws and customs, in all matters pertaining to their internal affairs, such as contracts and the manner of their enforcement, marriage, descents, and the punishment for crimes committed against each other. They have been excused from all allegiance to the municipal laws of the whites as precedents or dtherwise in relation to tribal affairs, subject; however, to such restraints: as were from time to time deemed necessary protection, tl.nd for the protection of the whites adjacent to for their them. Cherokee Nat. v. Georgia,5 Pet. 1,16,17; Jackson v. Goodell, 20 Johns. 193. This policy upon the part of the United States grew out of the ordinance of 1787, adopted by the confederate congress for the government of the territory north-west of the Ohio river, and has been constantly and scrupulously observed in relation to all Indians existing under trihal customs, and with whom the government has treated, and recognized as . independent tribes. The doctrine enunciated by the supreme court of the United States in the Oi"O'w Dog Case, (1883,) 109 U. S. 556,8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396, is based upon the idea of the supremacy and independence of the Brule Sioux tribe of Indians, in their tribal capacity, as admitted and recognized by the United States in a treaty stipulation. It was held that the district court of Dakota had no jurisdiction to try and punish Crow Dog for the murder of a member oihis own race, because he had been or wasHable to be punished by the local law of the tribe. But does the rule· in that case apply to the Indians of Alaska? I think not, and for various reasons. The United States has at no time recognized any tribal independence or relations among these Indians, has never treated with them in any capacity, but from every act of congress in relation to the people of this territory it is clearly inferable that they have been and now are regarded as dependent subjects, amenable to the penal laws ofthe United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Upan a careful ex- amination ilf the habits of these natives, of their modes of living, and their traditions, I am inclined to the opinion that their system is essentially patriarchal, and not tribal, as we understand that term in its application to other Indians. They are practically in a state of pupilage, and sustain a relation to the United States similar to that of a ward to a guardian, and have no such independence or supremacy as will permit them to sustain and enforce a system of forced servitude at variance with . the fundamental laws of the United States. Counsel for respondent suggests that these people are not included within the thirteenth amendment to the constitution, and the subsequent legislation by congress to enforce it. Before discussing the amendment, and its object, it is necessary to briefly examine the system of slavery among these natives. The object of all intellectual research is the dis-
covery of truth, and unless we close our eyes to observation, and dishelieve an unbroken chain of human evidence, we cannot escape the conclusion that slavery in its 1110st shocking form has been thoroughlyinterwoven with the social polity. of the Indians of Alaska, and still exists in many localities .under circumstances of extreme cruelty. The life of the slave is entirely at the disposal of his master or his mistress, and it has been customary among them to kill one or more slaves on the death of a master, or on the happening of some other event, slich as the completionof a new house. Boring the ears, or putting out an eye, of a slave, or some other mode of marking the flesh, has been and is now a custom with SOme of the families of these people. The evidence shows that the object of sucb mutilation is tojmpress upon the slaves their inferiority, and render their humiliation complete; that they are believers in witchcraft, and that, when a spirit of insubordination becomes manifest on the part oithe slaves, the juggler is called upon, anil that he, byexorcisms and magical incantations, pretends to dri Qut the rebellious a system be spirits I and the slaves are compel}ed to submit. :tolerated in a country WhOlle pe0ple lay claims to civilization and christianity? Does,xlOt every precept ofreligion, every prin<;liple that underlies our system of government, every axiom of our political fabric, cry out against such monstrous inhumanity? What was the object oithe thirteenth amendment to the constitution? In construing .the constitution, or any of its amendments, or any of t11e laws enacted in obedience to its commands, the court may derive aid from contemporaneous exposition; may look to the history of the time oOts adoptiol);'may asoortl\.in the evil sought to be remedied, and the object to be accomplished. Story,. Const. § 405. The object of the thirteenth amendment is easiiyunderstood. Its language is sweeping and far reaching. African slavery had practically baen abolishedhy the use of the lUilita,ry arm of the government. A new era had dawned upon the American people. The laist vestige of forced servitude, except for the punishment of crirp.e, was to be eliminated. from our political system by organic law. The thirteenth amendment was proposed to the several states by the. thirty-eighth congress on the first of Ij'e1)ruary, 1865, and was in a proclamation of these<::retary of state, dated on the eighteenth day oJ December following, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 27 of the then 36 statel>. The amendment is brief, broad in its scope: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for cr.iine whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or anyplace subject to its jurisdiction. "Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce .this article by appropriate .. , . . legislation."
It is, .indeed,. seldom that so :pIuch meaning is, contained within the compass of so short a and, for the purpose of m.aking the amendment effectual, the law known as the "Civil Rights Bill" was enacted in April, 1866. By it the last relieof slavery or forced servitude in any CQuceivable form) except for, the pUIlishment of crime, .is emasculated.
UNITED sTA'1ES V.THOMPSON.
Section 1990 abolishes peonage in New Mexico, and in every state and territory where it had a foot-hold. On March 3, 1871, congress passed a law absolutely· forbidding anyfi.Iture treaties with Indian tribes, or the recognition of tribal independence. See section 2079, Rev. St. And by an act approved March 3, 1885, (23 U. S. St. at Large, 385,) congress made all Indians amenable to the criminal laws of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of its courts for all offenses designated in said act, committed against the person or property of any other Indian, or any other person. The last act of congress referred to materially strengthens the view herein express!ld, that the Indians of Alaska are under the control of, and subject to the laws of, the United States. The petitioner testifies that he was captured and sold into slavery when a mere boy; that his labor from that time to this has been appropriated by others. He has lost one eye, his ears are badly mutilated, and he is certainly a sad spectacle of humiliated manhood. The crack of the lash, the torture of mutilation, the fear of death, the annoyance of the juggler, the excess of manuallabor imposed upon him, the extreme hardships of his life, with the sense of degradation and inferiority constantly before him, have subdued his manhood, and the pitiable spectacle of his once stately form is an evidence of the blighting curse of slavery. This case has been ably argued on both sides, and all the learning accessible to the attorneys has but I can arrive at no other conclusion than that been brought to the petitioner must be released from the merciless restraint imposed upon him, and go forth a, free man, and such is the order of the court.
UNITED STATES tI. THOMPSON.
(Oircuit Oourt. D. OregOn. June 27, 188.7.)
ACCOMPLICE-WHO IS-SUBORNATlON OF PERJURY.
The person solicited to commit perjury is not an accomplice in the crime of subornation committed by the person who suborned him; and the fact that .he committed the perjury does not prevent the jury from convicting the suborner of the solicitation on his testImony.
Thedefendant was indicted for procuring S. to commit perjury in taking an oath in support of an application for land under the timber-culture act, and it was alleged in the indictment that the defendant knew that S. did not make the application for his own use and benefit·, but for that of the defendant, and did not intend to cultivate the land, or anywise comply with said act. Held, that .such allegation wss. the legal equivalent of the allegation that the defendant knew that S. would and did swear willfully false .in taking said oath, and would and did thereby commit perjury, at least on a motion in arrest of judgment, after a verdict of guilty. . (Syllabus by theOourt.l .
SUBORNATION OF PERJURy-INDICTMENT.
Indictment for Subornation of PeIjury.
Lewi8 L. McArthur, for the United States.