Upon an indictment of an Indian for the murder of another Indian
within the limits of an Indian Reservation (Crim.Code, § 273, 328),
an objection that the district court has no jurisdiction over
person or subject matter because the defendant had been declared
competent and because the act charged was committed on land which
had been allotted and deeded to him in fee simple really goes not
to the jurisdiction, but to the merits, raising the question
whether the act was a violation of the federal law, and the
judgment of the district court is not reviewable by direct writ of
error from this Court, but should go to the circuit court of
appeals. P.
254 U. S. 550.
Clairmont v. United States, 225 U.
S. 551, explained.
Reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Page 254 U. S. 549
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Louie, an Indian, was indicted under § 273 of the Penal Code in
the District Court of the United States for the District of Idaho,
Northern Division, for the murder of another Indian within the
limits of the Coeur d'Alene reservation. A motion to dismiss for
want of jurisdiction was overruled, and the defendant was tried and
convicted. By motion in arrest of judgment, he objected in terms to
the jurisdiction of the court over the person of defendant and over
the crime charged on the ground that, before the time of the
alleged crime, he had been declared competent and the land on which
the crime was alleged to have been committed had been allotted and
deeded to him in fee simple.
Compare United States v.
Celestine, 215 U. S. 278.
This motion also was overruled, the defendant was sentenced, and
the case was taken on writ of error to the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court, one judge
dissenting, dismissed the writ of error for want of jurisdiction on
the ground that, since the sole question presented was whether the
district court had jurisdiction, its decision could be reviewed
only by direct writ of error from this Court to the district court.
See United States v. Jahn, 155 U.
S. 109,
155 U. S.
114-115.
Compare Raton Waterworks Co. v. City of
Raton, 249 U. S. 552. The
dissenting judge was of opinion that the circuit court of appeals
had jurisdiction of the writ of error because an additional error
relating to the merits had been assigned there, although not raised
below.
Page 254 U. S. 550
A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 253 U.S.
482.
We have no occasion to consider the question on which the
circuit court of appeals divided. The motions made by defendant in
the district court raised a question not of the jurisdiction of
that court, but of the jurisdiction of the United States. The
contention was, in essence, that, by reason of the facts set forth
in the motions, the defendant was in respect to the acts complained
of subject to the laws of the state of Idaho, and not to the laws
of the United States -- in other words, that he did not violate the
laws of the United States.
Compare United States v. Kiya,
126 F. 879, 880. Section 328 of the Penal Code provides that an
Indian committing murder on another Indian
"within the boundaries of any state, and within the limits of
any Indian reservation, shall be subject . . . to the same
penalties as are all other persons committing"
the same crime "within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States."
United States v. Kagama, 118 U.
S. 375;
Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.
S. 243,
228 U. S.
269-270. The defendant in effect denied that the killing
was, in the statutory sense, within the reservation. If this was
true, an essential element of the crime against the United States
was lacking, as much so as if it had been established in
United
States v. Sutton, 215 U. S. 291, or
in
United States v. Soldana, 246 U.
S. 530, that the region into which liquor was introduced
was not Indian country. That the district court for Idaho had
jurisdiction to determine whether the
locus in quo was a
part of the reservation was not questioned. By Section 78 of the
Judicial Code, the whole State of Idaho is comprised within the
District of Idaho; by paragraph second of § 24, district courts
have original jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses cognizable
under the authority of the United States, and the defendant was
arrested within the District of Idaho.
Page 254 U. S. 551
Since defendant's motions in the district court did not raise a
question properly of the jurisdiction of the court, but went to the
merits, there was no basis for a direct writ of error from this
Court.
Pronovost v. United States, 232 U.
S. 487;
Lamar v. United States, 240 U. S.
60,
240 U. S. 65. He
properly sought review in the circuit court of appeals. In
United States v. Celestine, 215 U.
S. 278, and
United States v. Pelican,
232 U. S. 442,
where the defense was similar to that presented here, and in
United States v. Sutton, supra, and
United States v.
Soldana, supra, the cases came to this Court by direct writ of
error to the district court under the Criminal Appeals Act of March
2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246.
Hallowell v. United
States, 221 U. S. 317,
where a similar question was involved, came here on certificate. In
Clairmont v. United States, 225 U.
S. 551,
225 U. S. 554,
it was inadvertently assumed without discussion that the question
involved was one of the jurisdiction of the district court.
The judgment of the circuit court of appeals is reversed, and
the case remanded to that court for further proceedings in
conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the decision of this case.