United States v. Dawson (56 U.S. 467)

United States Supreme Court

56 U.S. 467

United States  v.  Dawson

THIS case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof.

The two following questions were certified, viz.

1st. Did the act of Congress, entitled 'An act to divide the district of Arkansas into two judicial districts,' approved the third day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, whereby the Western District of Arkansas was created and defined, take away the power and jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas, so that it cannot proceed to hear, try, and determine a prosecution for murder, pending against the prisoner, James L. Dawson, a white man and not an Indian, upon an indictment found, presented, and returned into the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Arkansas, by the grand jury impanelled for that district, upon the 16th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, against said James L. Dawson, a white man, for the felonious killing of Seaborn Hill, another white man and not an Indian, on the eighth day of July, A. D. 1844, in that country belonging to the Creek nation of Indians, west of Arkansas, and which formed a part of the Indian country annexed to the judicial district of Arkansas by the act of Congress approved the seventeenth day of June, A. D. 1844, entitled 'An act supplementary to the act entitled 'An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers, passed thirtieth June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four," in which cause, so pending, no trial has as yet been had.

2d. Can the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas take jurisdiction of the case aforesaid, upon the indictment aforesaid, so found in the year 1845, in said Circuit Court for the District of Arkansas?

Although the name of Dawson only was mentioned in the question certified, yet the record showed that Baylor was indicted at the same as aiding and abetting in the murder.

A motion was made in the Circuit Court to quash the indictment upon the ground that this honorable court has no jurisdiction or power to hear, try, or determine this case and prosecution, and that all its jurisdiction and power in that behalf ceased and was extinguished on the third day of March, 1851, when that part of the Indian country, in which the offence is charged to have been committed, was severed from this district, and made part of a new district, under the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States, for the Western District of Arkansas.'

It was upon this motion that the judges differed in opinion and certified the two questions, above stated, to this court.

The motion to dismiss the case was argued by Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Pike, for Dawson, and by Mr. Cushing, (Attorney-General,) for the United States.

Mr. Pike, in his brief, made the following argumentative statement of pre existing laws upon the subject.

This is an indictment against James L. Dawson for a murder alleged to have been committed at the Creek agency, in the Creek country, west of Arkansas, on the 8th day of July, A. D. 1844. The bill was found by the grand jury for the Arkansas district, at the April term, 1845, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Arkansas.

At the April term, 1853, present Mr. Justice Daniel, and the honorable Daniel Ringo, district judge, a motion was made to quash the indictment for want of jurisdiction, on which motion the judges dividing in opinion, the prisoner was admitted to bail in an amount which he has been wholly unable to give; and upon a certificate of division of opinion the case has come into this court.

By the act of March 3d, 1817, (3 Stat. at Large, 383,) jurisdiction and power of trial, in cases where offences were committed in any town, district, or territory belonging to any nation or tribe of Indians, were given to the courts of the United States 'in each territory and district of the United States in which any offender against this act shall be first apprehended or brought for trial.'

The Constitution, art. III, sect. 2, No. 3, had provided that 'the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crime shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.'

The States and people not thinking this a sufficient guaranty for a fair and impartial trial, art. VI. of the amendments to the Constitution provides that 'in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.'

The Intercourse Act of 30th June, 1834, (4 Stat. at Large, 733,) by the 24th section, after making divers provisions, defining the limits of the 'Indian country,' and imposing penalties for sundry offences, provides 'that, for the sole purpose of carrying this act into effect,' certain Indian country, bounded east by Arkansas and Missouri, west by Mexico, north by the Osage country, and south by Red River, 'shall be, and hereby is annexed to the territory of Arkansas;' and by section 25 it was provided 'that so much of the laws of the United States as provides for the punishment of crimes committed within any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be in force in the Indian country; provided the same shall not extend to crimes committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian.' Power to apprehend offenders in the Indian country, and take them into 'the judicial district having jurisdiction,' was given by sec. 26.

Under this act the Superior Court of the Arkansas Territory took and exercised jurisdiction as to offences committed in the Indian territory so annexed to Arkansas.

But, by act of June 15th, 1836, (5 Stat. at Large, 50, 51,) Arkansas was admitted as a State; and sec. 4 provided 'that the said State shall be one judicial district, and be called the Arkansas District, and a District Court shall be held therein, to consist of one judge, who shall reside in the said district, and be called a district judge.' It was provided that he should hold semiannual sessions at Little Rock, and that he should 'in all things have and exercise the same jurisdiction and powers which were by law given to the judge of the Kentucky district, under an act entitled An act to establish the udicial courts of the United States.'

That was the act of September 24th, 1789, (1 Stat. at Large, 73.) That act gave to the District Court of Kentucky the jurisdiction of a circuit court, except on appeals and writs of error, in addition to the ordinary district-court jurisdiction. Sec. 10, and sec. 29, provided that in cases punishable with death, the trial should be had in the county where the offence was committed; or, where that could not be done without great inconvenience, twelve petit jurors at least should be summoned from thence.

There was, in the act of 1836, no express repeal of so much of the act of 1834 as applied to Arkansas; but the legislature, by expressly limiting and defining the bounds of the Arkansas district, and making it to be composed of the State, cut away the Indian country, and severed its connection with Arkansas. It was therefore held by the District Court of Arkansas that it formed no part of the district, and that the court had no jurisdiction to try and determine cases upon indictments found in the Superior Territorial Court, for offences committed in the Indian country prior to the 15th June, 1836; and all prisoners so indicted were discharged.

To remedy this, by act of March 1, 1837, (5 Stat. at Large, 147,) it was provided, that the District Court of Arkansas should have 'the same jurisdiction and power in all respects whatever that was given to the several district courts,' by the intercourse act of March 30, 1802, 'or by any subsequent acts of Congress, concerning crimes, offences, or misdemeanors, which may be committed against the laws of the United States in any town, settlement, or territory, belonging to any Indian tribe in amity with the United States, of which any other district court of the United States may have jurisdiction.'

Section 15 of this act of 1802, like the act of 1834, gave the jurisdiction of offences committed against its provisions to the territorial, circuit, and other courts of the United States, in each district in which the offenders should be apprehended, or into which, agreeably to the provisions of the act, they should be brought for trial. By sec. 19, persons apprehended in the Indian country were to be taken into one of the three adjoining States or districts for trial. If apprehended in any district, they were, by sec. 17, to be tried there.

By act of March 3, 1837, (5 Stat. at Large, 176,) the districts of Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, and the Eastern District of Louisiana, were erected into the ninth circuit; and provision being made for holding a circuit court at Little Rock, it was further, by the third section, provided, that so much of any act or acts of Congress as vested in sundry district courts, including that of Arkansas, 'the power and jurisdiction of circuit courts,' should be, and was thereby repealed, and like jurisdiction was given to the Circuit Court of Arkansas as to other circuit courts, and to the District Court of Arkansas as to other district courts.

Under these acts it was held by the Circuit Court for the District of Arkansas, in 1842, I think, present Mr. Justice Daniel and the honorable Benjamin Johnson, district judge-that the court had no jurisdiction as to offences committed in the Indian country.

Notes