rWENTy.;mNEGALLONS OF WHISKY.
not the GilY'of Kansas can 'proceed to enforce the collection of the taxes onthi!(property by sale after the title of the owner bad passed to the trustee!! of the cburch,and the property has been dedicated to a public charity, although the tax attached to the property prior to such dedication., ,Tlle issues are found for the defendants. Judgment accordingly._ :1 '
UNiTED STATE$'V. " ,
GAT,LONS OFWHTSKY, etc.,
(DlBtMctJOllUn,D. Montml.a; April 20,1891;)
INTOXIOATING LIQt:'ORS-TRANSPORTING 'rImOUGH'I1mIAN'CotrN'l'RT.
Tr",nsporting ardent sp.iritslloll an article of l;\Ommerce through an Indian , between plaees outside the same; is not a violatIon of S. S 21111l. wbich provides that "no ardent spirits shall be introduced, under any pretense, into the Indian It _ , ' _ , "
, , In a libel to forfeit alleged to Jnto an Indian country, a plea that claimant did not unlawfully introduce said whisky into any Indian - country,and that he did not introduce it'inUindlng to sell or dispose of it to any In4i81l-. is. pad, siOlle the ,first. allegatio!1 JIt a law, and the second Is irrelevant. A plea that,the'whisky when· seized was in the claimant's possession, and:that he was theJ;l on his road fraqi ,a town named to anO,tber town not named, neitller of suoh towns being within .y Indian country, is also bad, since it does not show tbat the ,Whisky was in transit sebed,or that the unnamed town was 01f the reservatj.on.
At LaW.' Libel:for forfeiture on demurrer to answer. T1iO,8. '0. Bach, for clainiants. Elbert V.Weed, U. KNOWLEs,J. In this case 29 gallons of whisky and :other articles were, it is alleged in the libel of information, seized by George Steel, an Ipdian agent, upon Indian reservation, as not, perby Ill-won saidreservatiot;l, and forfeited to the United ,Eitates. ·It is alleged in said said whisky was introduced into and,f()und in the Indian country, with the enumerated as tpe sam6 1 t().wit, upon the Blackfoot Ind'ian reservation. It isproyided by the statutes of the United States St. § 2139}that" no ardent be introduced, under any pretense, into thelndian country." And' in section 2140: . ',
sUl'erintendentQf !ndian affairs, Indian agent, or subagent, or officer of a military post, has reason to .Iluspect. or is, infQI'med. tlll\tauywhite person or Indian is about to. introduce. or; has SpJ'ritous liquor or wine into the Indian country, inviolatioit of Iaw,ljIuch agent"subagent, or commanding officermay'c3use the boats, .stores, paCkages, wagons, sleds,' places of (leposit of such person to be' seaiched;
and, if any such liquor is found therein, the same, together with the boats, teaIBs, wagons. and sll'ds used in conveying the same, and also the goods, packages, and pel tries of such person, shall be seized and delivered to the propl'r officer, and shall be proceeded against by libel in the proper court, and forfeited'." ' TIle said Indian agent, and the United States attorney for the district of Montana, have proceeded in accordance with the provisions of this statute. The claimants of said whisky and other articles are Robert Turner and Elias Turner, who have made answer to the above libel. The third , specification in their answer is as follows: "Denyi,that they, or eltMr Of them, unlawfully'introduced"thesaidtwentynine gallons of whisky, or' any thereof, or 'anyof the goods seized, or any other goods, into any Indiaa country, or that they, or either of them, or any one else, introduced said goods, or any t·herojl\>f, within Indian country or Indian reservation, meaning or intendinR to sell 01' dispose of the same, or any thereof, to llny lndil;'n, at anyplace.", they did not unlawfully introduce said whisky is a legal 'Conclusion. ' The'6.llegation amounts to an: admission that they introduced the, whisky into an Indian country. The allegation that the whiskywlls: introdtIced,Withoutanyiiltention of selling the same to any ilmhunts to :\1ojustification. The introduction of ardent spirits, under any'p1'etense, inwan>Indian country, is unlawful, for it is prohibited by said section 2139, above referred to. The fourth,clause, or;theclaimfllnts' answet is as follows: .. Fourth,,' '[dlaima.ntS] altegeand propound the facLto be that at the time mentioned in 'said libel of ,information, that ,said property in said libel 'mentiont'(l W:lS in the possession of said Elias Turner. at the time of its seizure, and that he was at said time 011 his road from the town of Dupuyer, in the county of Choteap.!dont.,to the town of --'-,'-, a town 011 the line of the Great Northern Railroad, in Montana, neither of is wIthin any Indian reservation or Indian country, and was proceeding upon his journey to said last-mentioned place, as he had a lawful right" to do, and was not intending to dispose or sell, and that he did not dispose or sell, any of said whisky or. Itpirltous liquor, or any goods, to any person within any Indian reservation,or Indian country." It will be observed that in these, allegations it is not directly alleged that said whisky was being transported across the reservation mentioned in 'the libel,ot that thesatne' was en route fromsbilie place outside of the :resel'vationtb some place beyond the same; but His alleged that the claimant Turner wa8sb e,n riJute across said' reservation, and did notin'tend to sellor'dispose ofsaid'whiskyto anyone on the Indian reservatiori, This is not the alleg:Hion that should have been made'. There is another objection to these allegations. They do not clearly show that the plaCEr on the Grea t Northern Railroad where said claimantwas goi ng "was off of the 8aid reservlttion. , , It is true, he says it is. ,But. the plac'e isnotnamed,i.andthe court cariI).ot see that it is beYOlld the reservation. the court might t,akejudiciaI notice as to whether or on the reservll,tion. ,It might turn out. that, it was
UNITED STATES 11. TWENTY-NINE GALLONS OF WHISKY.
only the opinion of claimant that it is beyond the reservation. Certainly the plaintiff, the United States, could not take issue upon the point as to whether it was off the reservation. For these reasons I think the demurrer should be sustained. The point that it should be sustained, urged by the United States district attorney, because it appears in the answer that the whisky was found and seized upon the said reservation, without any consideration of how it .came there, and the claimants show no license or permission 1;0 carry it there, I do not think well taken. In construing.the statute under consideration, we should look at the iobject of the same, and the llvil sought to be remedied thereby. . The purpose of the, statute was undoubtedly to prevent the placing of whisky; or ardent 01' spirituous liquors, in such a place as would make it accessible to Indians. It was not the jJurpose of that statute to interferein any manner with the commerce in liquors between sections'of the country not Indian.. The construction of that statute" which would allow the seizing of spirituous liquors fo'nnd upon an Indian reservation without, reference to the purposes in regard to which it came there,wotild prevent the transportation of such liquors from the' east· to' the 'Pacific coast on, the line of the Northern Pacific It would prevent such liquors from being transported. to·Montana, on the line of that road, or the Great Northem road; for' it is well known that all these roads traverse, before they reach the settled portions of Montana, Indian reserVations. . If the simple fact ofthe finding ofsu'ch liquors within an Indian reservation,without license, .is'Sufficient to make the same liable to forfeiture, and all conveyances in which the same may be found, then there is riot a through !,flSsenger train on either the linc of the Great Northernor Northern Pacific Railroads which would not be subject to seizure and forfeiture, under the above statute; for both carry, it is well known, more or less spirituous liquors across Indian reservations on the line of said roads. I do 110t think congress in this statlite contemplated any such result. For these reasons I hold that the proper construction of the above statute,as to the terms, "no ardent spirits shall be introduced, under any pretense, into the Indian country ," is al3 follows: Whenever such liquors Il.re taken into an Indian country, as their place of destination or use, then they have been introduced into such country. In other words, when Much liquors reach an Indian country, as the end of their journey, they have, within the meaning of that statute, been introduced into such country. Tt is not necessary to show that they were broughHhere for the purpose of sale to Indians or anyone. The transportation of such liquors through an Indian country, between places outside the same, as an article of commerce, is not, within the meaning of that statute, introducing them into said country. For the reasons before stated, the demurrer is sustained to the answer. v.45F.no.12-54
(Oircuit douri D. Verinont. April 7, 1891.) ,
XN OF DoT!';' "
C\lllg. Oct. I, 1890"it provided that tb,e on imported .' llltcjWd be reduced from two dollars to one dollar pedl., !mt that, If any country ;,' 8lbMd'imposean export duty on logs for this country, the duty 'on lumber should ,T. fromCana.. dlaWe.asrem. Y.ed. .. The lumber In question was imp\lrted .September 27th, and deposited In bond. It .'WWu not'withdrawn until Octoberi18tll. '. Held, that under the provl!lon of section , I: M,tllat maY be withdrawn within three years from tlie date of the orlglnallmportatloll- npon the payment of the duties and charges to ",I 'which it may be lltlhjeot by law at the time of its withdrawal, it should have been ,,i omy qlla jlqijal' per thoul!lPtlJ.4- " '. ,
i ", :'''.
:return, of the ,)P,rior to OLOct9perl, the duty on PUle two dqlJarf!! per l\J. 22, St.&Ol,Schedule D. Hickok imported 'su(lh)u!11per SeptePJ-per 27th, at Burlington, and deposJbppd. ,By, that act the .dpty was fixed at ope: dollar per M., i( an on logs for this cOlln,tljy JUlllher iql:R9rtedfrom £!houJd remain duty on logs froUl Camtda was, to take effect .. withdrawn frOlUbQnd !'tnd entered for Gon,s9w,ptiQn .octobe.r 16th. .!. oftwodol1ars pel';M. was assessed upon, the hadnotbeell informed ffQD1, the. treasury dethe expoJ;t duty on logf! hlldbeen removed by Canada·. This asseSSInElllt. appears been affi,rweq by the general.appraisers because have been imported after October 13th. But the lumber,diq"not by secti9P" 54.of that t'ct. any "may be withdra}Vnfor ,consUD}pijon, withio;tllree years froD) ,the date of original paYIIIeJ,lt ,of the dutillfl and charges to whicb it may be subject at the time of sucb . This lumber was subject duty·Qfone dollar per ¥.oply at the timepf its withdrawal. importers seemtohll-ve had the right to withdraw payment of that ,Hartra,njt v. Oliver, 125 U. s. . 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 95S" Judgment that entrY he liquidated at one M.· : :
J. , 'f.,q.ilf matterhJla been heard upon,