in the same manner and shall be subject to the same penalties as are all other persons charged with the commission of said crimes, respectively; and the said courts are hereby, Courts given given jurisdiction in all such cases; and all such Indians all such cases. committing any of the above crimes against the person or property of another Indian or other person within the boundaries of any State of the United States, and within the limits of any Indian reservation, shall be subject to the same laws, tried in the same courts and in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties as are all other persons committing any of the above crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Sec. 9, act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. L., 385). alty. Assault; pen- 26, s. 5, v. 10, p. Sec. 2142, R.S. 1990. Every white person who shall make an assault upon an Indian, or other person, and every Indian who shall make an assault upon a white person, within the 270. Indian country, with a gun, rifle, sword, pistol, knife, or any other deadly weapon, with intent to kill or maim the person so assaulted, shall be punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than five years nor less than one year. 270. Arson. Sec. 2143, R.S. 1991. Every white person who shall set fire, or attempt Mar. 27, 1854, c. to set fire, to any house, outhouse, cabin, stable, or other 26, s. 4, v. 10, p. building, in the Indian country, to whomsoever belonging; and every Indian who shall set fire to any house, outhouse, cabin, stable, or other building, in the Indian country, in whole or in part belonging to or in lawful possession of a white person, and whether the same be consumed or not, shall be punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than twenty-one years nor less than two years. 1. S. r. Kagama, 118 U. S., 375; U. S. v. Thomas, 151 U. S., 577; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S., 556; In re Mayfield, 141 U. S., 107; Famous Smith v. U. S., 151 U. S., 50. For cases not falling within the scope of the act of March 3, 1885, see 1 Gould and Tucker, 499, 500; 2 Ibid, 192. The supreme court of the District of Columbia has jurisdiction of an offense committed by one Indian upon another Indian when committed outside the Indian country. In re Wolf, 27 Fed. Rep., 60. The prohibition against the jurisdiction of the United States courts to try an Indian for an offense committed on another Indian applies only when the offense is committed in the Indian country. When the Indian commits a crime outside the Indian country (although that crime may be on another Indian) he is, like any other person, amenable to the criminal laws of the place where the crime is committed. Pablo r. People, 46 Pac. Rep., 636. The power of Congress to regulate the intercourse between the inhabitants of the United States and the Indian tribes therein is not limited by State lines or governments, but may be exercised and enforced wherever the subject-Indian tribesexists. U. S. v. Bridleman, 7 Fed. Rep., 894; U. S. v. Earl, 17; Ibid, 75. In the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate intercourse with the Indian tribes, Congress may define and punish crimes committed by white men upon the person or property of an Indian, and vice versa, within as well as without the limits of a State. U.S.. Martin, 14 Fed. Rep., 817; U. S. . Renfrew, 41 Pac. Rep., 161. Rape. Jan. 15, 1897, s. 5, v. 29, p. 487. Horse stealing, etc., in Indian v. 25, p. 33. 1992. Any Indian who shall commit the offense of rape within the limits of any Indian reservation shall be punished by imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Section 5, act of January 15, 1897 (29 Stat. L., 487). 1993. Any person hereafter convicted in the United Territory, 1888, States courts having jurisdiction over the Indian Territory or parts thereof, of stealing any horse, mare, gelding, filly, foal, ass, or mule, when said theft is committed in the Indian Territory, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not more than fifteen years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. Act of February 15, 1888 (25 Stat. L., 33). Punishment. Robbery and burglary. Punishment. Sec. 2, ibid. Offenses upon Indians, etc. 1994. Any person hereafter convicted of any robbery or burglary in the Indian Territory shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding fifteen years, or both, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That this act shall not be so construed as to apply to any offense committed by one Indian upon the person or property of another Indian, or so as to repeal any former act in relation to robbing the mails or robbing any person of property belonging to the United Pending trials. States: And provided further, That this act shall not affect or apply to any prosecution now pending, or the prosecution of any offense already committed. Section 2, ibid. Repealing clause: larceny excepted. Sec. 3, ibid. Reparation for injured property. 731. 1995. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed: Provided, however, That all such acts and parts of acts shall remain in force for the punishment of all persons who have heretofore been guilty of the crime of larceny in the Indian Territory. Section 3, ibid. of 1996. Whenever, in the commission, by a white person, June 30, 1834, c. any crime, offense, or misdemeanor, within the Indian 161, s. 16, v. 4, P. country, the property of any friendly Indian is taken, Sec. 2154, R.S. injured, or destroyed, and a conviction is had for such crime, offense, or misdemeanor, the person so convicted shall be sentenced to pay to such friendly Indian to whom the property may belong, or whose person may be injured, a sum equal to twice the just value of the property so taken. injured, or destroyed. Payment where the offender is same. 1997. If such offender shall be unable to pay a sum at unable to make least equal to the just value or amount, whatever such payJune 30, 1834, c. ment shall fall short of the same shall be paid out of the Treasury of the United States. If such offender can not 161, s. 16, v. 4, p. 731. Sec. 2155, R.S. be apprehended and brought to trial, the amount of such property shall be paid out of the Treasury. But no Indian shall be entitled to any payment out of the Treasury of the United States for any such property if he, or any of the nation to which he belongs, have sought private revenge, or have attempted to obtain satisfaction by any force or violence. property by In June 30, 1834, c. 731: Feb. 28, 1859, c. 66, s. 8, v. 11, p. 401. Sec. 2156, R.S. 1998. If any Indian, belonging to any tribe in amity with Injuries the United States, shall, within the Indian country, take dians. or destroy the property of any person lawfully within such 161, s. 17. v. 4. p. country, or shall pass from Indian country into any State or Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States, and there take, steal, or destroy, any horse, or other property, belonging to any citizen or inhabitant of the United States, such citizen or inhabitant, his representative, attorney, or agent, may make application to the proper superintendent, agent, or subagent, who, upon being furnished with the necessary documents and proofs, shall, under the direction. of the President, make application to the nation or tribe to which such Indian shall belong, for satisfaction; and if such nation or tribe shall neglect or refuse to make satisfaction, in a reasonable time not exceeding twelve months, such superintendent, agent, or subagent shall make return of his doings to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that such further steps may be taken as shall be proper, in the opinion of the President, to obtain satisfaction for the injury. 1999. Every person who unlawfully cuts, or aids or is Penalty for employed in unlawfully cutting, or wantonly destroys or procures to be wantonly destroyed, any timber standing 25, p. 166. upon the land of the United States which, in pursuance of law, may be reserved or purchased for military or other purposes, or upon any Indian reservation, or lands belong-Extende ing to or occupied by any tribe of Indians under authority of the United States, shall pay a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned not more than twelve months, or both, in the discretion of the court.' Act of June 4, 1888 (25 Stat. L., 166). timber depreda- Sec. 5388, R.S. to 'The act of June 4, 1888, prohibiting the cutting of timber on Indian lands, is operative upon the Osage Reservation, and in respect to the Osage Indians. Labadie v. U. S., 51 Pac. Rep., 666. The act also applies to an Indian sustaining tribal relations who cuts timber for speculative purposes. Ibid. Indians occupying reservations, the title to which is in the United States subject to their occupancy, have no right to cut and remove the dead and fallen timber thereon for the purpose of sale alone; such timber, where not used by the Indians for fuel or for agricultural purposes connected with the occupation of the land, being the property of the United States. XIX Opin. Att. Gen., 194. 22924-08-50 Indian lands. Disposal of timber. 25, p. 673. 2000. The President of the United States may from year dead and fallen to year, in his discretion, under such regulations as he may Feb. 16, 1889, v. prescribe, authorize the Indians residing on reservations or allotments, the fee to which remains in the United States, to fell, cut, remove, sell, or otherwise dispose of the dead timber standing or fallen, on such reservation or allotment, for the sole benefit of such Indian or Indians. But whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that such timber has been killed, burned, girdled, or otherwise injured for the purpose of securing its sale under this act. then in that case such authority shall not be granted.' Act of February 16, 1889 (25 Stat. L., 673). Removal of persons. 161, s. 10, v. 4, p. 730. 2001. The superintendent of Indian affairs, and the InJune 30, 1834. c. dian agents and subagents, shall have authority to remove from the Indian country all persons found therein contrary to law; and the President is authorized to direct the military force to be employed in such removal. Sec. 2147, R.S. Penalty for return. 128, s. 2, v. 11, p. 2002. If any person who has been removed from the InAug. 18, 1856, c. dian country shall thereafter at any time return or be found within the Indian country, he shall be liable to a penalty of one thousand dollars. 80. A contract by an Indian to cut and deliver to a purchaser a certain quantity of dead timber from a reservation, "more or less," or "about," and which is approved by the President under the act of February 16, 1889, limits the quantity to which the purchaser can obtain title thereunder to that stated; allowance being made only for immaterial and accidental variation. U. S. v. Pine River Logging Co., 90 Fed. Rep., 907. The timber on Indian reservations belongs to the United States, and, in the absence of legislative authority, the Indians have no authority to cut or dispose of it. Ibid. The act empowering the President to authorize Indians to cut and remove from their reservations "dead timber" includes in that designation trees still living, but vitally injured, so that they will die in a short time, but not living and uninjured trees merely because they stand among trees a large proportion of which are dead. Ibid. It is not unlawful for an Indian having a contract, approved by the President, to cut and deliver a certain quantity of dead timber from a reservation, to permit other Indians to cut and deliver timber thereunder in his name. Ibid. 2 Under section 2147, Revised Statutes, authorizing the use of the military in the removal from the Indian country of "persons found therein contrary to law," held that the President was authorized to direct that a company of United States troops be stationed in the Indian Territory near the Kansas line to act as a patrol, and to apprehend and return within that line any and all lawless persons, guilty of crimes committed in Kansas, who have escaped from justice into the Indian country. Dig. Opin. J. A. G. par. 1505. Under the Constitution, the acts of Congress, and the regulations adopted by the Indian department, the power of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the agent acting under him and by his direction in removing any one not a member of an Indian tribe is a matter intrusted to the discretion of the Commissioner, and is not reviewable. Adams v. Freeman, 50 Pac. Rep., 135. An order from a State court restraining an Indian agent from ousting trespassers from an Indian reservation should be disregarded as without jurisdiction. XX Opin. Att. Gen., 245. An Indian agent has no authority forcibly to eject persons from land not within an Indian reservation, although it is inclosed in allotments made to Indians in fulfillment of a treaty stipulation, and may be restrained by injunction from so ejecting one who, before such allotment, entered the land as a homestead and made valuable improvements thereon. La Chapelle r. Bubb, 2 Fed. Rep., 545. reservations. 155, s. 2, v. 11, p. 332. Sec. 2149,R.S. 2003. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs is authorized Removal from and required, with the approval of the Secretary of the, June 12, 1858, c. Interior, to remove from any tribal reservation any person being therein without authority of law, or whose presence within the limits of the reservation may, in the judgment. of the Commissioner, be detrimental to the peace and welfare of the Indians; and may employ for the purpose such as may be necessary to enable the agent to effect the removal of such person. force Employment of military force in apprehending persons violating the law. June 30, 1834, c. p. 732. 2004. The military forces of the United States may be employed in such manner and under such regulations as the President may directFirst. In the apprehension of every person who may be 161, ss. 21, 23, v. 4, in the Indian country in violation of law; and in convey-Sec. 2150, R.S. ing him immediately from the Indian country, by the nearest convenient and safe route, to the civil authority of the Territory or judicial district in which such person shall be found, to be proceeded against in due course of law; Second. In the examination and seizure of stores, packages, and boats, authorized by law; Third. In preventing the introduction of persons and property into the Indian country contrary to law; which persons and property shall be proceeded against according to law; Fourth. And also in destroying and breaking up any distillery for manufacturing ardent spirits set up or continued within the Indian country.1 Under section 2150, Revised Statutes, a military commander may be authorized and directed by the President to arrest by military force and deliver to the proper civil authorities for trial any white persons or Indians who may be in the Indian country engaged in furnishing liquor to Indians in violation of law, as also to prevent by military force the entry into such country of persons designing to introduce liquor therein contrary to law. Held that this authority to prevent was clearly an authority to arrest where arrests were found necessary to restrain persons attempting to introduce liquor or other inhibited property. Dig. Opin. J. A. G., par. 1506. The troops of the United States can not be employed in the Indian Territory for the purpose of assisting in the preservation of the peace and the arrest of bandits and outlaws unless they are trespassing upon Indian country, or absconding offenders within the provisions of section 2152 of the Revised Statutes. XXI Opin. Att. Gen., 72. Whatever may be the rule in time of war and in the presence of actual hostilities, military officers can no more protect themselves than civilians for actual wrongs committed in time of peace under orders emanating from a source which is itself without authority in the premises. Hence a military officer seizing liquors supposed to be in Indian country when they are not is liable to an action as a trespasser. Bates v. Clark, 95 U. S., 204. Officers of the Army making arrests under section 23 of the act of June 30, 1834 Stat. L., 732; sec. 2150, Revised Statutes), act as officers of civil law. To justify uch arrests there must be strong probable cause. In re Carr, 3 Sawyer, 316. The troops of the United States can not be employed in the Indian Territory to aid in the preservation of the peace and in the arrest of alleged "outlaws and bandits" unless such persons are trespassing, or are absconding offenders within the provisions of section 2152, Revised Statutes. XXI Opin. Att. Gen., 72, |