Opinion of the Court. The mere reservation of jurisdiction and control by the United States of "Indian lands" does not of necessity signify a retention of jurisdiction in the United States to punish all offences committed on such lands by others than Indians or against Indians. It is argued that as the first portion of the section in which the language relied on is found, disclaims all right and title of the State to "the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof and of all lands lying within said limits, owned or held by an Indian or Indian tribes, and until the title thereof shall be extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States," therefore the subsequent words "and said lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the United States," are rendered purely tautological and meaningless, unless they signify something more than the reservation of authority of the United States over the lands themselves and the title thereto. This argument overlooks not only the particular action of Congress as to the Crow reservation, but also the state of the general law of the United States, as to Indian reservations, at the time of the admission of Montana into the Union. On April 11, 1882, c. 74, 22 Stat. 42, Congress confirmed an agreement submitted by the Orow Indians for the sale of a portion of their reservation, and for the survey and division in severalty of the agricultural lands remaining in the reservation as thus reduced. The act, however, provided that the title to be acquired by the allottees was not to be subject to alienation, lease or incumbrance, either by voluntary conveyance of the grantee or his heirs, or by the judgment, order or decree of any court, but should remain inalienable and be not subject to taxation for the period of twenty-five years, and until such time thereafter as the President might see fit to remove the restriction: The policy thus applied to the Crow reservation subsequently became the general method adopted by Congress to deal with Indian reservations. In February, 1887, by a general law, Congress provided "for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations, and to extend the protec Opinion of the Court. tion of the laws of the United States and the Territories over the Indians, and for other purposes." Act of February 8, 1887, c. 119, 24 Stat. 388. The act in question contemplated the gradual extinction of Indian reservations and Indian titles by the allotment of such lands to the Indians in severalty. It provided in section 6, "that upon the completion of said. allotments and the patenting of said lands to said allottees, each and every member of the respective bands or tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside." But the act at the same time put limitations and restrictions upon the power of the Indians to sell, encumber or deal with the lands thus to be allotted. Moreover, by section 4 of the act of 1887, Indians not residing on a reservation, or for whose tribe no reservation had been provided, were empowered to enter a designated quantity of unappropriated public land and to have patents therefor, the right, however, of such Indian to sell or encumber being regulated by provisions like those controlling allotments in severalty of lands comprised within a reservation. From these enactments it clearly follows that at the time of the admission of Montana into the Union, and the use in the enabling act of the restrictive words here relied upon, there was a condition of things provided for by the statute law of the United States, and contemplated to arise where the reservation of jurisdiction and control over the Indian lands would become essential to prevent any implication of the power of the State to frustrate the limitations imposed by the laws of the United States upon the title of lands once in an Indian reservation, but which had become extinct by allotment in severalty, and in which contingency the Indians themselves would have passed under the authority and control of the State. It is also equally clear that the reservation of jurisdiction and control over the Indian lands was relevant to and is explicable by the provisions of section 4 of the act of 1887, which allowed non-reservation Indians to enter on and take patents for a certain designated quantity of public land. In Opinion of the Court. deed, if the meaning of the words which reserved jurisdiction and control over Indian lands contended for by the defendant in error were true, then the State of Montana would not only be deprived of authority to punish offences committed by her own citizens upon Indian reservations, but would also have like want of authority for all offences committed by her own citizens upon such portion of the public domain, within her borders, as may have been appropriated and patented to an Indian under the terms of the act of 1887. The conclusion to which the contention leads is an efficient demonstration of its fallacy. It follows that a proper appreciation of the legis lation as to Indians existing at the time of the passage of the enabling act by which the State of Montana was admitted into the Union adequately explains the use of the words relied upon and demonstrates that in reserving to the United States jurisdiction and control over Indian lands it was not intended. to deprive that State of power to punish for crimes committed on a reservation or Indian lands by other than Indians or against Indians, and that a consideration of the whole subject fully answers the argument that the language used in the enabling act becomes meaningless unless it be construed as depriving the State of authority to it belonging in virtue of its existence as an equal member of the Union. Of course the construction of the enabling act here given is confined exclusively to the issue before us, and therefore involves in no way any of the questions fully reserved in United States v. McBratney, and which are also intended to be fully reserved here. Our conclusion is that the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Montana had no jurisdiction of the indictment, but, "according to the practice heretofore adopted in like cases, should deliver up the prisoner to the authorities of the State of Montana to be dealt with according to law." United States v. Me Bratney, supra, and authorities there cited. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for proceedings in conformity to this opinion. Opinion of the Court. WILSON v. KIESEL. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH. No. 139. Argued and submitted November 3, 1896. Decided November 30, 1896. The complaint in this case sought to compel a number of stockholders in a corporation severally to pay their respective alleged unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock of a corporation, the amounts to be applied in satisfaction of a judgment in plaintiff's favor. Among the stockholders so proceeded against were K., C. and A. As to them the allegations were that each subscribed for fifty shares of the corporation, of the par value of one hundred dollars each; and that each was liable for five thousand dollars, for which recovery was sought. Held, that the amount involved for each subscription did not reach the amount necessary to give this court jurisdiction; that the subscriptions could not be united for that purpose; and that even if they could, there having been a cross bill in the case, the judgment upon which must affect rights of parties not before the court, the court could not take jurisdiction. MOTION to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Abbot R. Heywood for the motion submitted on his brief. Mr. Ogden Hiles opposing. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court. Wilson recovered judgment against the Ogden Power Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the Territory of Utah, for $22,405.16, on which an execution was issued and returned wholly unsatisfied, whereupon he filed a bill in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Territory of Utah, County of Weber, against the company; and against Kiesel, Anderson and Carnahan, and many others, to compel them severally to pay their respective unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock of the corporation to be applied in satisfaction of the judgment. Defendants Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson were charged with having each subscribed for fifty shares Opinion of the Court. of the par value of one hundred dollars each and with being each liable for five thousand dollars. They answered denying that there was anything due from them to the corporation, and alleging that each of them had paid in full and at par value the amount of the stock subscribed by him; and averring, among other things, that plaintiff was also a subscriber and had paid no part of his subscription; and that Wilson had long before sold and assigned the said judgment and now had no interest therein; and by way of cross complaint alleged that said judgment was entered by unauthorized consent and was fraudulent and void for various reasons set forth; that it had been sold and transferred to third parties; and that if the action of Wilson against the company had been tried, no greater sum than two thousand dollars would have been found due; to which cross complaint plaintiff filed an answer. The record discloses that some twenty-two of the other defendants filed their several answers to the complaint, but does not contain those answers. The cause was referred to a special master to take testimony and report his findings thereon, and he subsequently filed a report containing twentyone findings of fact, embracing a finding that defendants Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson had paid their subscriptions to the capital stock in full, and to these the master added twenty-nine further findings, making fifty in all. As a conclusion of law the master recommended that the court find that plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for the sum of $16,500.52; that some thirty-two named defendants, not including Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson, should be, respectively, ordered to pay their unpaid subscriptions in the amounts stated; and that said amounts should be applied in payment of the judgment and costs. A decree was thereupon rendered in favor of plaintiff, April 29, 1893, making the findings and conclusions of the master the findings and conclusions of the District Court, and awarding judgment against each of some thirty defendants for amounts stated severally and separately as to each, and in favor of some seven defendants under a stipulation that they had paid their |