HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0298 and id is 1 raw text is: JANUARY TERM, 1846. 567
The United States v. Rogers.
THE UNITED STATES, PLIINTIFFS, V. WILIA S. ROGERS.
The United States have adopted the principle originally established-by- European
nations, namely, that the aboriginal tribes of Indians in North America are not
regarded as the owners of the territories which they rcpectively occupied. Their
country was divided and parcelled out as if it had been vacant and unoccupied
land.
If the propriety of exercising this power were now an open question, it'wuld be
one lor the law-making and political department of the government, and not the,
judicial.
The Indian Zribes residing within the territorial limits of the United States are
subject to their authority, and where the country occupied by them is n6t within
the limits of any one of the StatesCongress may, by law, punish any offence
committed there, no hiatter whether the offender be a white man or an Indian.
The twenty-fifth section of the act oe 30th June, 1834, extends the laws of the
United States over the Indian country, with a proviso that they shall not include
punishment for crimes dommitted by one Indian against the person or property
of another Indian.
This exception does not embrace the cise of a white man who, at mature age,is
adopted into an Indian tribe. He is not an Indian, within the meaning of-
the law.
The treaty with the Cherokees, concluded at New Echota, in 1835, allows the In-
dian Council to make laws for their own people or such persons as have con-
nected thiemselves with them. But it also provides, that such laws shall not be
inconsistent with acts of- Congress. The act of 1834, therefore,controls and ex-
Olains the treaty:
It results from these principles, that a plea, set up by a white man, alle&ing that he
had been adopted by an Indian tribe, and was not subject to the jurisdiction of,
the Circuit Court of the United States, is not valid.
THis case came up, on a certificaie of division, from the Cir-
cult Court of the United states for the District of Arkansas.
At the April term, 1845, of the said Circuit Court,, the grand
jury indicted William S. Rogers for the murder of Jacob Nichol-
son. Both Rogers and Nicholson were alleged, in the indictment,
to be 1 white men and not Indians. The offence was charged.
to have been committed within the jurisdicion of 'the court, that is'
to say, in that part of the Indiancountry west of the State of Ar-
kansas that is bounded north by the north line of lands assigned to
the Osage tribe of Indians, produced east to the State of Mis-
souri, west by the Mexican possessions, south by Red River, and
east by the west line of the now State of Arkansat, and the State
of Missouri (the same being territory annexed to the said District
of Arkansas, for the purposes in the act of Congress in that behalf
.,nade anti provided]).
The defendant filed the following plea :-
And the defendant in his own proper person, comes into court,
and, having heard tha said indictment read, says, that the court
ought not to take further cognizance of the said prosecution, be-
cause, he says, heretofore, to wit, on the - day of November,
1836, he-then being a free white man and a citizen of the United
States, and having been born in the said United States, voluntarily
and of his free will removed to the portion of the country west of
the State of Arkansas, assigned and belonging to the Cherokee](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0298&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)