In re Lelah-Puc-Ka-Chee

98 F. 429, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa
DecidedDecember 29, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 98 F. 429 (In re Lelah-Puc-Ka-Chee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Lelah-Puc-Ka-Chee, 98 F. 429, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256 (N.D. Iowa 1899).

Opinion

SHIR AS, District Judge.

In this proceeding a petition has been filed praying the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to cause to be brought before the court Lelah-puc-ka-chee, an Indian girl belonging to the Sac and Fox tribe of Indians, who occupy a reservation in Tama county, Iowa; „ it being averred in the petition that she is unlawfully restrained, of her liberty by being compulsorily kept at the Indian training school, which is situated near the city of Toledo, Tama county, and in the vicinity of the Indian reservation. As it was apparent to the court that in the hearing of the matter questions of moment would arise, which ought not to be determined without opportunity being given for full consideration, and as it was also apparent that need did not' exist for taking the Indian girl from the school during the pendency of the proceedings, the court directed the petition for the writ to be set down for hearing, and notice thereof to be given to W. G. Malin, the Indian agent, and G. N. Nellis, the superintendent of the school, who are the parties charged in the petition with illegally and wrongfully depriving the Indian girl of her liberty. Upon the day thus set for hearing the matter, the respondents appeared in person and by the United States district attorney, and filed an answer to the petition, and thereupon counsel for the respective parties were heard at length upon the [431]*431questions involved. Briefly stated, the position taken by the attorney for the petitioner is that Lelah-puc-ka-chee is about 18 years of age; that she is a married woman, being the wife of Ta-ta-pi-cha; that, contrary to her wishes and those of her husband, she is compelled to remain at the training school; that there is no law authorizing the Indian agent and school superintendent to compel the attendance of the Indian children of this tribe at the school in question; and that the detention of the girl is therefore wholly unwarranted. On behalf of the respondents it is claimed that Lelah-puc-ka-chee is but little over 16 years of age; that W. G. Malin, the Indian agent, was appointed the guardian of Lelah-puc-ka-chee by the district court of Iowa for the county of Tama, her parents being incapable of taking care of her; that she was placed in the training school, under charge of the respondent Kellis; that in some way she was induced by Ta-ta-pi-cha and other Indians to leave the school, and by intimidation was induced to report that she had been married to Ta-ta-pi-cha; that this pretended marriage is in fact a fraud; that it is necessary, in order to complete her education, that Lelah-puc-ka-chee should be kept for some time yet at the training school, where she was placed by her guardian; that Ta-ta-pi-cha, the alleged husband, with other Indians, is opposed to the education of the Indian children at the training school; and that the present proceeding is merely in aid of this purpose, and, if sustained, will result in defeating the beneficial object for which the school has been established.

The first matter for determination is the position or relation which the Indians settled upon the reservation in Tama county hold with reference to the state and federal governments. It appears that under date of October 11, 1842, the United States entered into a treaty with the Sac and Fox Indians whereby the latter ceded to the United States all their lands west of the Mississippi river, the United States agreeing to assign to them, as a reservation and a permanent place of residence, a tract of land upon the Missouri river, or some of its tributaries, to which the Indians were to remove within three years; the government to pay to the Indians an annual interest of 5 per cent, upon the sum of $800,000, and to pay the existing debts of the Indians, and also to furnish certain supplies. 7 Stat. 596. It further appears that in accordance with the terms of this treaty a reservation was set apart for the Indians, which is now included within the boundaries of the slate of Kansas, and the tribes removed thereto. Subsequently a few of the number returned to Iowa, and, uniting willi some scattered remnants that had not gone to the new reservation, they established themselves in Tama and the adjoining counties. The government of the United States endeavored to induce these members to join the confederated tribes, and for years refused to pay them any portion of the tribal annuity, but these efforts were of no avail. Finally, in 1856, the state of Iowa, by an act of the general assembly, recognized their right to remain in the state; and in 1857 the Indians bought an 80-acre tract of land in Tama county, making it the nucleus of their proposed permanent settlement, which has increased, through [432]*432the bounty of the state and national governments, until it now includes nearly 8,000 acres in extent, with an Indian population of about 400 souls. In 1895 there was organized what is known as “The Indian Rights Association of Iowa,” the main purpose of which was to labor for the advancement of the Indians on the Tama reservation; and to that end the general assembly of Iowa was induced to pass in 1896 an act ceding to the United States jurisdiction over the reservation in question, which cession was accepted by congress by a clause inserted in the act approved June 10, 1896, making appropriations for the Indian department, in which clause it is enacted “that the United States hereby accepts and assumes jurisdiction over the Sac and Fox Indians of Tama county, in the state of Iowa, and of their lands in said state, as tendered by the act of the legislature of said state. * ⅜ *” 29 Stat. 331. Through the combined efforts of the agent for the reservation, the Indian Rights Association, and the department for Indian affairs, there was secured from congress, under date of June 10, 1896, an appropriation of the sum of $35,000 for the purchase of a site and the erection of the necessary buildings for an industrial school at or near the reservation in Tama county; and the money thus appropriated was used in the construction of the buildings now constituting the Indian training school, which adjoins the town of Toledo, and is some four or five miles from the reservation. From this brief statement it sufficiently appears that the reservation in Tama county and the Indians living thereon are now committed to the care and control of the United States government, and the source of the authority of the Indian agent and superintendent of the school over the Indians must be sought in the legislation of congress, and the regulations of the department in charge of Indian affairs. I can find no substantial ground upon which to base the right and authority of the district court of Iowa for Tama county to appoint guardians for the persons of the Indian children living on the reservation. If this right exists simply by reason of the fact that the Indians reside within the territorial boundaries of Tama county, it would necessarily follow that the state court would possess the. right to appoint administrators of the estates of the Indians, and in all respects to take charge of the domestic relations of these Indians; but this right has never been asserted, and it is apparent that the exercise thereof would of necessity cause constant confusion in the affairs of the Indians. As I understand it, the. purpose of the cession by the state to the national government of the jurisdiction over the reservation and the Indians living thereon was to center in the one government the duty of taking charge of these Indians, and thereby to avoid the evils that would necessarily arise from .a divided control over them.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

IN THE MATTER OF S.J.W.
2023 OK 49 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2023)
United States v. Papakee
485 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (N.D. Iowa, 2007)
State v. Bear
452 N.W.2d 430 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1990)
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield
490 U.S. 30 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Sac & Fox Tribe v. Licklider
576 F.2d 145 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)
Wakefield v. Little Light
347 A.2d 228 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
National Indian Youth Council v. Bruce
366 F. Supp. 313 (D. Utah, 1973)
Porter v. Hall
271 P. 411 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1928)
United States v. Myers
206 F. 387 (Eighth Circuit, 1913)
Hollister v. United States
145 F. 773 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)
Peters v. Malin
111 F. 244 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa, 1901)
Farrell v. United States
110 F. 942 (Eighth Circuit, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 F. 429, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lelah-puc-ka-chee-iand-1899.