I;IO:lilPtitllld by the Chinel\egoyernment. etc.; in each case be evidenced by a certificate i!lsne4 by, such government" which certificate shaH be in the English etc. ",,' *, * The certificate provided for in this act, and the identity of the person named therein, shall, before such person goes on board of any vessel to proceed to the United States, be vised by the indorsement of the diplomatic representatives of the, United States, in the foreign country from which said certificate issues, or of the consular representatives. etc. * * * Such certificate, vised as aforesaid, shaH be prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein. and shall be produced to the collector of customs in tile' ptih of the disttict of the United States at which the person named therein shall arri've, and afterwards produced to tbe proper 8uthor,itie!l of tbeUnited· States, whenever la\vfully demandetl,an4;l shall be tbe sole evi. dence permi&llmleon the part of person so producing the,same to establish , a rigl1t to entry 10t,0 the United States."
No such certificate has been produced or was obtained by the petitioner in this case. Ris conte.nded on her part that the certificate is declared to be the sole ev.idence permissible on the part of :the,p.erson so producing the same, and that, inapmuch as this person haB not produced any certificate, parol testimony is admissible to show that she does not belong to the prohibited dass; The language of the act iscertaiuly infelicitous, but its meaning is obvious., It is that the certificate, is required to be produced oy all Chinese persons, other than laborers, claiming the right to enter this country j and such certificate is to ,be the sole Ijvidence of their right to land. Unless, therefore, the whole 66ction is to be disregarded" and the obvious intention of congress frustrated, the ,certificate must in all'cases be exacted.· To say that because the applicant has utterly neglEJCted to comply with the law, and has produced no certificate, therefore her right to land may be established by other evidence; would be' 'absurWeonClusion, founded upon the mere letter of statute, lirid in obVIOUS contraventidn Qf its spirit and meaning.' . The 'petitioner
CRIMINAL LAW-.TVRISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS-ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY.
Const. U, S. art. 1. § 8. cVl/i, congress the exclusive over' a'di places purchased by the United ,States, with the consent of the state in which the same are sitnated, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals., dock, yards, atld Otber needfulbulldlngs, confers no jurisdiction upon the federal courts to try a person for a petty larceny committed in the National Cemetery on tlle Arlir;.gton estate, which was Ilurchased by the United States at a tu-sale" without consent of the state of Virginia. ,."
At Law. Information against Dennis Penn for a petty larceny 'committed in the<NaMonal Cem'etc;Jry on the Arlington estate, Alexandria V &., ,On plea to the jurisdiction, and demurrer Plea silstained.
·, nt)verceded by-the fact." ,L;·'L.. fal< the UnitiedStates. 'Olia'rte8.E. StfJArt, for defendant; , .' " ", ,-. '.", '-, -,,', \- I,e " !., I ',' ·
at a thereof was based . .
"E!1qGHES,J'.d Jl1heieightb; ,seQtion of the first artl9le of.the cODstitutI9fl inthesevepteenth clause, giv.es the right of excluaive 'to to exellcise authority aver all places purchnsed by the consent of the Jegislature, of the,stitteiinvhichthesame shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and oth'iW needful 'buildings. ' :-The purchase oilands. for the United States. for 'public pUl'poses,'does not of itselLoust the jurisdiction of such state 'Ovetzthe S. v.Oof.tltU, 2 MallOOj60.The constitg. ti6h prescribes'the onlyn:iod:eby whiehrthey can:la:cquire land as a sov. ereign power; and therefbre'they hold only as an individual when they ob· tain itin any!6thermanner. :a,m.v.'¥ottng. BrightlY,N. '\1'; Godfrqy, 17 Johns. U; S. v.Travers, 2 Wheeler,Crim.. Cas. 490; Poople v; Lent, Id. 548LO If Ithete benO'cessionby a state,the statejllrisdietion !'ItiU reniairtsl}C'otn. v.,YtlUng, ,1 Hall, Law,J.47j 1 Kent Comm. 403. 404; and Story, Const. §'U27 · where Judge Story
States. fOL'a Jort,arsellal. JRt other tion still perfect."
corlst'antlyoccupied and1l8ed,under purchase O.L' otherwise, by the .lTnIted
"If there has
cessi'Onby the stllteof the place, although it haa been
purpofle, the state jurisdic'.' ,''. "
It seems too plain for, doubt, much as we may regret the fact in, this particular case, that this!court has Do.jurisdictioD in the premjaesj alld the demurrer accordingly must be overruled, and
,OtrcuCt Oourt, D. Montana. November 28,189L)
itOt.UfS-FEDERAL JmUSDICTION-RAPlII IN "INDIAN COUNTRY."
Rev. St. U. s. I li84ll, prov:idea for the punishment Of rape oommittEid ,Ill any of theplaoes mentioned in section 51:89, and the latter section speoifies, among ,qtners, "anyfort * * *ordlBtr.iot of country under' the exoluaive jurisdiction, of the United States." .Section 2145 deolares that, "except aa to crimes the puniabment ofwhioh ia expressly pro'V:i.ded ifor in thiatitle, the general laws ofthel1nited States as to the punishment of orimes oommitted within the aole and exolu.iye jurisdiotionoftheUnitedStates * * * shall extend to the Indian country." Beld. that, as the punishment of rape is not specified in the title mentioned, a rape oom. mitted in "the Indian COtintry" is section 0845.
SUlB-WHAT IS "INDI.UI COUNTRY "-RBSEliIY4TIONS.
Prior to the admission of Montana as a "tate, the Crow Indian reservation aituated therein was tllirt(jf, tbe "Indian countrlY," within.. the meaning of Rev. St. § 2145, extending the general oriminallawa of the United States over the IJildian ooun-