OCR Text |
Show RIGHTS OP 11 AGENTS LIMITED Supreme Court Draws Distinction Dis-tinction as to Powers of Representatives. In affirming the judgment of the district dis-trict court of Wasatch county in the case of Edward Murdock and Franklin Murdock, plaiutiffs and respondents, against John Fan-ell, defendant and appellant, ap-pellant, in which suit was brought for the recovery of $4S7 alleged to be due for a camping .outfit and for their interest in-terest in a band of sheep, the supreme court of Utah draws nice distinctions both as to the powers of federal government gov-ernment Indian agents and as to the status of the Indians themselves in such cases in the state of Utah. The Murdocks admitted that they leased the sheep from one Towanta, an Indian, and that they were to receive a certain amount of tho increase for herding herd-ing and care for a certain number of years. Mr. Farrell denied that he purchased the Murdocks' interest in the sheep, but claimed that he obtained possession with : the consent of the Murdocks as sub-agents sub-agents in the employ of the so-cailed In-;dian In-;dian service of the United States gov-j gov-j ernment and that he took possession under un-der tbe following federal statute: The superintendent of Indian affairs, af-fairs, and the Indian agents and sub-abents, shall have authority to remove from the Indian country all persons found therein contrary to law; and the president is authorized to direct the military force to be employed in such removal. If any person who has been removed re-moved from the Indian country shall thereafter at any time return or be found within the Indian territory, ter-ritory, he shall be liable to a penalty pen-alty of $1000. Chief Justice J. E. Frick, who wrote the opinion, in discussing the relations between the state and federal governments govern-ments in the matter, says in part: I Mr. Farrell Ts counsel say that To-! To-! wanta, tbe owner of the sheep, was i an Indian and a ward of the United ! States government, and that in j I view of a decision of the United ! i States supreme court Farrell. as a ; sub-Indian agent, had tho right to ! take Towanta's sheep from the ; Murdocks. We do not agree. While in the case cited from the supreme court it . is held that the ' United States government mav 1 maintain an action to protect all Indian wards of the government in their property rights, it is not held that any Indian agent, or sob-agent, sob-agent, may constitute himself court and iurj- to determine for himself without going into court what and whose property he will take. It may be that if it were pleaded and proved in a proper case commenced com-menced by the United States government gov-ernment in the federal courts, or in any court having jurisdiction of the matter, that the Indian Towanta was an Tndian and a ward of the United States government, and that he was defrauded of his property, or about to be. the court iu which the action was brought would determine deter-mine the rights of all claimants, and especially of the Indian Towanta. There is, however, no evidence in this case that Towanta was an Indian In-dian ward of the United States government. gov-ernment. Nor is there any allegation allega-tion nor proof that' he was being defrauded or that his property was in jeopardy, or that he was not legally competent to deal with his own property. We certainly do not take judicial notice of the legal status of any particular Indian in view that there j are many of them in this state j whose legal status and rights are L those of the white man. |