UNITED STATES 11. CLAPOX.
licensed dMlers, was in violation of law, and an evasion of the large license tax imposed on liquor dealers, varying from $600 to $1,000, and was an injustiee to those liquor dealers who honestly paid their license These facts would have justified the use by the defendant of much more vigorous and earnest language than any that is found in the articles oomplahied of. It is the duty of the press to fearlessly expose a traffic in violation of law, or prejudicial to the public morals, or which seeks to evade the revenue laws of the state. The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.
(DiBtrict Oowrt, D. Oregon. July 18, 1888J
to, mDJA1'I'B-UHATILLA 011' Pm!lsIDlIll'l'T. " The is by the treaty of June 9, 18&5, (12 St. 948,) and the Revised Statutes. (sections 441, 463, 46.5,) to make rules for the government of the Indians on the Umatilla reservation, including the establishment of an Indian court and police, and the definition of"Indian oJfeneee" and the meas· lJre therefor. 2. 8AltE-MiSDEMEAl'I'ORs-ADULTERY. The terlll "misdemeanor." as used in No.9 of the rules promulged by the secretary of tbe interior On December 2, 188.2. for the lovernment of the In· , diansol). the Umatilla and, other reservations, includes adultery.a. REso-q:m"':'REV. ST. U. S. 5401. " . woman, arrested by the Indian police on the Umatilla reserva· tion, on a charge of adultery committed thereon. was committed to the Indian jail for trial before the "court of Indian offenses." and, while so committed, was rescued and set at liberty by the defendants. Held, that tbey thereby committed the crime of rescue, as defined by eection5401 of the Revised StatIltes, by forcibly setting a eerson at liberty who was committed for "a crime against the United States
lItl. tM (Jourt,)
Information for a Rescue. Lewis L. McArthur, for plaintiff. John J. 'Balleray, for defendants.
DEADY, J. The defendants are accused by this information of a violation of section 5401 of the Revised Statutes, which provides: ..Every person who by force sets at liberty or rescues any person who, befote conviction, stands committed for any capital crime against the United States, or who :by force sets. at lioerty or rescues any person committed for or convicted.of a,nr offense other than capital. shall be fined not more than $500, and more than one year." It is alleged in the information that on March 27, 1888, the defendants were Indians residing on the Umatilla Indian reservation, and under the charge of a United States Indian agent; that one Minnie was then an Indiall married to an lndian, both of whom then resided on said reservation, and were under the charge of said agent; to
. FEDERAL·· REPORTER.
said date the secretary of the interior,underthe authority and by the direction of the president, promulged certain rules providing for a "court of Indian offenses" and an Indian police force on said reservation, and caused to be erected thereon a jail for the safe-keeping of such persons as might be committed thereto by said court, either for examination or punishment; that no written warrants are issued .by said court, and uo written record is· kept of its· findings or judgments; that under the rules establishing said court and police, and the direction of said agent, the officers of said police force had then and there the authority to arrest any Indian whom they might have cause to believe had,"committed a crime or an Indian offense" on said reservation, and commit him to jail for examination. or trial before said court. On March 27, 1888, said Minnie was arrested on said reservation by said police force for the Hoffense of living and coltabiting" thereon an Indian other than her husband, and placed in' said· jail, to awaIt her trial for said offense before said court; and. that said defendants did then and there "unlawfully and with force and arms break open the said jail, enter the same, rescue and set at liberty" said Minnie, contrary to the statute, ate. The defendants demur to the jnformation, fdr that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime. . Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 oraaid rules prescribe the for certain acts called therein "Indian offenses," such as the "sun, "the (/scalp," and the "war polygamy, "the usual practices of so-called 'medidne men,'" the destruction or ·lheft of Indian property, and buying or selling lndian'wolnen for the purpose of cohabitation. In addition, to these, rule.9 provides that said court shall of misdemeanoI'& committed by Indians belonging to the reservation."., · 011 the a.rgt;tm1mt oithe demurrer,:counsel for the defendants contended that the alleged rescue ianot withi.n.t):le purview of statute, because (1) act for which Minnie was committed is not a crime" against the United States," but only a violation of an Indian police regulation; and (2) adultery is not a "misdemeanor" at common law, and therefore the court of Indian offenses has no jurisdiction inthepJ:emises, and the,arrest of Minnie was illegal and void. . .. It is also doubted whether the interior department has authority to define HIndian offenses," or establish courts for the punishment of Indian offenderl3, as set forth in saidr.u,les. And first, as the authority of the department in the premises. By article 8 of the treaty of June 9, 1855, (12 St. 948,) between the United States and certain tribes and bands of Indians of eastern Oregon and Washington, of which the Umatilla Indians are one, it is provided: "The confederate bands acknowle4g·e their dependence on the government ()fthe United States, * * * and engage to submit to and observe all laws, rules, and regulations which may be prescribed by the United States for the government of said Indians." The Revised Statutes provide: Sec. 441; "The secretary of the interior is charged with the !iupervision of the public business relating to the * ** Indians."
UNITED STATEs fl. CLAPOX.
Sec. 463. "The c:iommissionerof Indian affairs shall, under the direction of the secretary of the interior. and agreeably to such regulations as the pl'esi. dent may prescribe, have the management of all Indian affairs, and of all matters arising out of the Indian relations. " .. Sec. 465. "The president may prescribe such regulations as he may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs. " By this treaty the Umatilla Indians engaged to submit to any rule that might be prescribed by the United States for their government. This obviously includes the power to organize and maintain this Indian court and police, and to specify .the acts or conduct concerning which it shall have jurisdiction. This treaty is an "act" or law" relating to Indian affairs, "-the affairs of these Indians; and by said section 465 the power to prescribe a rule for carryinK the same into effect is.given to the president, who has exercised the same in this case through the proper instrumentality,-the secretary of the interior. Then there is the general power given by said sections 441 and 463 to the president, acting through the secretary of the interior and the commissioner of Indian affairs, to make regulations for the" management of all Indian affairs, and of all matters arising out of the Indian relations." These "courts of Indian offenses" are not the constitutional courts provided for in section 1, art. 3, Const., which congress only has the power to "ordain and establish," but mert! educational and disciplinary instrumentalities, by which the government of the United States is endeavoring to improve and elevate the condition of these dependent tribes to whom it sustains the relation of guardian. In fact, the resel,'vation itself is in the nature of a school, and the Indians are gathered there, under the charge of an agent, for the purpose of acquiring the habits, ideas, and aspirations which distinguish the civilized from the uncivilized man. As was said by the supreme court in U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 383, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1109: "These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation; they are commnnities dependent on the United States; dependent largely for their daily food; dependent f9r their political rights. They owe no allegiance to the states, andreceive from them no protection." There is no doubt of the power of the United States to make these rules, nor that the president is authorized by congress to exercise the same. It is admitted that adultery was not a crime at common law, except in the time of the commonwealth, when it was punished with death. 4Bl. Comm. 64; 1 Bish. Crim. Law, § 39. Blackstone says: "At the Restoration, when men, from an abhorrence of the hypocrisy of the late times, fell into a contrary extreme of licentiousness, it was not thought proper to renew a law of such unfashionable rigor." And this offense "has ever since been left to the feeble coercion of the spiritual court, cording to the rules of the canon law; a law which has treated the offense of incontinence, nay, even adultery itself, with a great degree of tenderness and lenity, owing, perhaps, to· the constrained celibacy of itS first compilers,." v.35F.no.8-37
In this country, where there is neither an established religion nor ecclesiastical courts, the offense is only punishable in the common-law courts when so statute. A misdemeanor is def;ined to be" any crime or indictable offense not amounting tofelony." L. Law Diet. "Misdemeanor." Blackstone says, (4th book, 5:)
"A crime or· misdemeanor is alla(lt committed or omitted in violation of public law either forbidding or commanding it. This general definition comprehends both crimes and misdemeanors, which, properly speaking, are synonymous terms, though in comnion usage. The word ·crimes' is made to denote such offenses as are:of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while smaller faults andomissioDs of lessl)<)nsequence are comprised, under the gentler name of ·misdemeaI\ors ' only."
But the term is sometimes, and' not seldom, used in and out of statutes to denote a mere wrong nofpunishable as aerime. In Rexv. Wilkes, 4 Burrows, 2540, the term as used in 4& 5 Will. & Mary, c. 18, in relation to outlawries, was held not to inch;tde the case of a conviction for a: libel, but was confined to trespass and other civil cases. The definition given in Worcester is: "An offense; ill behavior; evil conduct; misconduct; fault;" . Adultery, though not punishable by the English common law, was defined and punishable by the English ecclesiastical or canon law. And this latter was in a sense a part of the common law of England,-tbe law of the land. The common law brought to this country by the American colonists included this crime of adultery as defined by the canon law; but, there being no ecclesiastical courts in this country, some of the colonies held that the offense was cognizable in the comml)n-law courts, and others made it aoby legislation. 2 Whart. Crim. Law, §§ 1717-1720. Adultery is a crime by the statute of this state, though a prosecution therefor can only be commenced on the complaint of the injured party. In .legal parlance, the act for which Minnie was committed is, in this state and the United States generally, a crime or misdemeanor. In this case the term "misdemeanor" is used in a series of rules promulged by the department of the interior fot the improvement of the morals of the Indians on this reservation. In them, after enumerating certain acts and conduct peculiar to the Indianin his savage state, including "plural marriages," it is provided that the court .of Indian offenses "shall also have jurisdiction of misdemeanors committed by the Indians belonging to the reservation." , It is altogether in keeping with the general purpose and spil'it of these rules that adultery should be prohibited and punished by them: as well as the acts and conduct specifically mentioned therein. In my judgment the term "misdemeanor," as·used in the n1nth rule, includes and was intended to include the act ofadultery. And lastly, was,Minnie committed for a crime against the United States? . The answer to this.. question is not far to seek. A crime is said to be committed against a state or sovereign when the act which constitutes itia a violation of a penal law of such state or sovereign. In this case the United States, by virtue of its power and authority in the premises,
ADAMS,,,.'XEYSTONE MANUF'G CO.
has established 11 rule, which is, in effect; a law prohibiting the' commission of adultery by an Indian on the Umatilla reservation, and providing for the arrest, trial, and punishment of any Indian guilty of a violation of the same. Minnie was commitood for a violation of this law, and was therefore commited for a crime against the law-maker,-the Uniood states. , /Tbepla.ce or ,manner other commitment is immaterial. She have been comm'itted to the custody of the police officer, ifthought neeessary or convenient, or any house or inclosure provided for the purpose. Nor need the process have been in writing. From this Indian court and police; in this, their first effort in the administration of justice, written' pl"ocess and proceedings dauld nbt have been expected. The old Knickerbocker, Wouter van Twiller, when exercising tlie of·' fice of magistrate, paid no heed to parchment, ,but delivered to thecon-: stable,as the symbol of his authority, his well-known jack-knife and tobacco box, armed with which' the of New Amsterdam might safely "comprehend all vagi-om men." ' But, pleasantry aside, and in conclusion, the act with which defendants are charged is in flagrant opposition to the authority of the United States on this reservation, and directly subversive of this laudable effort to accustom and educate these Indians iuthe habit andknowledge of self-go\'ernment. It is therefore appropriate and needful that the power and name of the government of the United States should be invoked to restrain and punish them. The' case falls within the letter ofthe statute (section 5401, Rev. St.) providing for the punishment of persons who are guilty of rescuing anyone committed for an offense against the United States, and I see no reason why it Should be construed out of it;, or the statute held inapplicable to it. The demurrer is overruled.
ADAMS tI. KEYSTONE MANUF'G
Co. et al.
«(MettU Oourt, No D. ilZinois. June 80,1888.
PATENTS 1I'OB INvENTIONS-ANTICIPATION-CORN-SHELLER8.
Letters patent No. 182.128, granted October 15,1872, to Henry A. Adams, for an improvement in corn-shellers. consisting of a winged shaft at the throat of the corn-sheller, revolving in the direction in which the corn is running, so as to drive the ears of corn. as they are delivered at the throat by the carrier or elevator. into the shelling devices of the machine, are not void for the want of novelty. no device having been brought to the attention of the court anticipating them. though the patent issued to Augustus Adams, May 15. 1866. for a corD sheller, shows a winged shaft in close proximity to the throat of the machine. revolving in a contrary direction to that of the ,device in the above patent. The above letters patent are not confined in their application to machines. and are infringed by a shaft thickly set with spikes or projections revolving over the throat of a low-feed machine, as the patent states that "it is evident that the form or shape of the beaters or. projections upon the revolving shaft may be varied in many ways, and the reilult accomplished...