Pronovost v. United States
1914 U.S. LEXIS 1379 · 232 U.S. 487 · 34 S. Ct. 391 · 58 L. Ed. 696
February 24, 1914 · Docket 128
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The prosecution charged the defendant with introducing liquor into the Flathead Indian Reservation, invoking the 1897 statute that criminalizes such conduct wherever Indian country exists.
- Headnote 2
The Court noted that the Flathead Indian Reservation, although located in Montana, is legally considered Indian country for the purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction.
- Headnote 3
The indictment alleged that the liquor was introduced into the Flathead Reservation; under statutory provisions, the district court correctly exercised jurisdiction over the crime.
- Headnote 4
The defendant argued the liquor was introduced in the town of Poison, not the reservation, but the record contained no such allegation and the indictment named the Flathead Reservation, so the court correctly refused the directed‑verdict motion and dismissed the error petition.
- Headnote 5
The prosecution charged the defendant with introducing intoxicating liquors into the Indian country of the Flathead Reservation, invoking the federal statute enacted on January 30, 1897.
- Headnote 6
The Court cites Hallowell and Wright for the proposition that the statutory prohibition applies to Indian country even when the reservation is situated inside a State.
- Headnote 7
The opinion takes judicial notice that the Flathead Indian Reservation existed in 1911 and affirms the established rule that a reservation qualifies as Indian country.
- Headnote 8
Statutory authority (Rev. Stat. § 563 and the 1889 act) grants district courts jurisdiction over offenses within the State of Montana, which covers the Flathead Reservation.
- Headnote 9
The record disclosed the indictment charging introduction of liquor into the Flathead Reservation; the defendant’s argument that the town of Poison was incorporated was unsupported and therefore insufficient to create a jurisdictional doubt.
- Headnote 10
The Court found no real jurisdictional issue in the record; consequently the writ of error was dismissed as provided by the Judicial Code.
- Headnote 11
The statute expressly criminalizes the introduction of those liquors into any area defined as Indian country, establishing the substantive offense for federal prosecution.
- Headnote 12
Congress intended the statute to apply to reservation lands that are located inside a State, so the federal prohibition reaches those areas.
- Headnote 13
Federal courts treat any reservation as Indian country, making offenses committed there subject to federal statutes that apply to Indian country.
- Headnote 14
Statutory provisions and the act of 1889 give district courts authority to try crimes committed on reservations inside a State such as Montana.
- Headnote 15
The record indicated the liquor was introduced into the Flathead Indian Reservation, not the town of Poison, and the defendant’s jurisdictional argument lacked any evidentiary support.
- Headnote 16
Because the record demonstrated the district court had clear jurisdiction over the offense, there was no issue for the Supreme Court to review, justifying dismissal of the writ.
- Headnote 17
The prosecution charged the defendant with introducing whiskey, wine, and beer into the Flathead Indian Reservation, and the Court cited the 1897 statute as establishing the offense.
- Headnote 18
The Court relied on precedent that the statute embraces Indian country inside state boundaries, thereby covering reservations such as Flathead in Montana.
- Headnote 19
The Court took judicial notice that the Flathead Indian Reservation existed in 1911 and applied the principle that a reservation qualifies as Indian country.
- Headnote 20
The opinion states that the district court’s jurisdiction embraces all offenses against the United States within Montana, and that this includes conduct on the Flathead Reservation.
- Headnote 21
The defendant argued that the liquor was introduced in the incorporated town of Poison, but the record showed no mention of Poison and indicated the liquor was introduced into the Flathead Reservation, so the claim did not raise a genuine jurisdictional issue.
- Headnote 22
The Court concluded that because the record verified the district court’s jurisdiction, there was no basis for the writ of error and dismissed it under the Judicial Code.
- Headnote 23
The Court notes that Congress enacted the Act of January 30, 1897, which prohibits the introduction of such liquors into Indian country, establishing the statutory basis for federal jurisdiction over the offense.
- Headnote 24
The opinion cites Hallowell v. United States and United States v. Wright, holding that the 1897 Act embraces Indian country located inside a State.
- Headnote 25
The Court takes judicial notice that the Flathead Indian Reservation existed in Montana on the date of the offense and applies the principle that a reservation constitutes Indian country.
- Headnote 26
The opinion states that, subject to limited exceptions, the district court’s jurisdiction embraces all offenses against the United States within Montana, referencing Rev. Stat. § 563 and the 1889 act, thereby covering crimes committed on reservations.
- Headnote 27
The record indicated the defendant admitted introducing the liquors on the Flathead Reservation; the government’s evidence did not mention the town of Poison. The Court held that the absence of such evidence means the jurisdictional challenge lacks support, so the district court correctly refused the directed verdict.
- Headnote 28
Because the record showed the offense was cognizable in the district court and no real jurisdictional issue was raised, the Court applied Judicial Code § 238 to dismiss the writ of error.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a criminal prosecution for introducing intoxicating liquors into the Indian country.. Upon the trial, the jury found the defendant guilty, and a judgment of conviction, followed, to reverse which he sued out this direct writ of error. No brief or argument has been submitted in his behalf, and the grounds upon which he seeks a reversal are not made clear.
It appears that the jurisdiction of the District Court was challenged upon some ground, not disclosed in the record, and that the objection was overruled. The indictment is in the usual form, gives January 2, 1911, as the date of the offense, describes the liquors as consisting of designated quantities of whiskey, wine and beer, and charges that they were introduced by the defendant into the Flathead Indian Reservation, in the State of Montana, the same “then and there being an Indian country.” A brief bill of exceptions recites that the Government produced evidence in support of the charge and that the defendant admitted the introduction of the liquors “as charged in the indictment.” Nothing more appears respecting what was shown at the trial.
An act of Congress of January 30, 1897, makes the introduction of liquors, such as whiskey, wine and beer, into the Indian country an offense against the United States, and prescribes its punishment. 29 Stat. 506, e. 109, This act embraces Indian country within the limits of a State. Hallowell v. United States, 221 U. S. 317; United States v. Wright, 229 U. S. 226, 237. An Indian reservation is Indian country (Clairmont v. United States, 225 U. S. 551), and we take judicial notice that on the date named there was an Indian reservation in the State of Montana known as the Flathead Indian Reservation. Treaty of July 16, 1855, 12 Stat. 975, Art. II; Acts, April 23, 1904, 33 Stat. 302, 304, c. 1495, § 12; March 3, 1905, 33 Stat. 1048, 1080, c. 1479, § 9; Rep. Com. Ind. Affairs, 1911, p. 83. Subject to exceptions not here material, the jurisdiction of the District Court, as prescribed by law, embraced all offenses against the United States committed within the State of Montana. Rev. Stat., § 563; act of February 22, 1889, c. 180, § 21, 25 Stat. 676, 682.
Thus we see, not only that the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction was challenged are not disclosed by the record, but also that, so far as appears, the offense charged in the indictment and shown at the'trial was manifestly cognizable in the District Court.
The bill of exceptions contains a further recital that the defendant, at the conclusion of the evidence, requested the court to direct a verdict of acquittal upon the ground that the town of Poison was incorporated under the laws of Montana and subject to the State’s police power, and that the subject-matter of the case was not within the control of the United States. In this there may have been an indirect assertion that the liquors were introduced into the town of Poison, not into the Flathead Indian Reservation, and that the offense, if any, was not one against the United States. But, even if so, the assertion has no other support in the record. The indictment makes no mention of the town of Poison, and neither does the recital respecting what was shown at the trial. The latter, as we have seen, states that the Government pro duced evidence in support of the charge and that the defendant admitted the introduction of the liquors “as charged in the indictment.” The natural import of this is that the liquors were introduced into the Flathead Indian Reservation. In this situation the reference to the town of Poison cannot be regarded as a factor in the case. But, as bearing upon the possible status of the lands occupied by-the town, see Perrin v. United States, ante, p. 478; Act of June 21, 1906, c. 3604, § 17, 34 Stat. 325, 354; Act of March 3, 1909, c. 263, § 21, 35 Stat. 781, 795.
As no real question of the District Court’s jurisdiction is involved, nor any constitutional or treaty question, there is no basis for the direct writ of error. The Judicial Code, § 238.
Writ of error dismissed '.