u.
S.
v.
ELM (Case
No.
15,048)
Case No. 16,048.
UNITED
STATES
v.
ELM.
[2
Cin.
Law
Bui.
307; 23
Int.
Rev.
Rec.
419.]
District Court,
N.
D.
New
York. Dec.2-l, 1877.
CITIZSNBIlIP
or
INDIANS-DI8INTSGRATSD
TRIBKS
-RIG
iT
TO
VOTS.
[lndiaDS
born
in the United States, of a tribewliich has ceased
to
maintain its tribal integrity,and
who
are subject
to
taxation under the lawsof the state in which they reside. are "subject tothe jurilldiction" of the Uuited States, within themeaning of the fourteenth amendment to thecollstitution, and are therefore, under its
terlDS,
citizens of the United States, and of the state oftheir residence, and
po88eB8
the right to vote innational
electioDS.]
[Cited in Elk
v.
Wilkins,
112
U. S.
120, 5
Sup. Ct. 48, 55.][This
was
an
indictment
against
Abraham
Elm,
an
Oneida
Indian.
for Illegal voting.
Heard
on motion for a
new
trial.]
[25 Fed.
Cas.
page
1006]
were
then formally ruled
against
the
de
fendant,
might
be
deliberately
considered
and
decided upon a
motion for
a
new
trIaL
That
motion
has
been made,
and
the
ques
tion
Is
now
presented
whether
or not
the
Oneida
Indians
are
citizens
of
the
United
States,
and. as
such,
entitled
to
vote.
If
the defeudant was
a
citizen
of
the
Unit
ed States,
he
was
entitled
to
exercise
the
rightof
suffrage.
The right to
vote
is
con
terred
by the
state, not by
the
United
States,
and
It
has
been
couferred
In New
York
upon
"every male
citizen
of the
age
of
twenty
one
years
who shall
have
been a
citizen
for
ten days and
an
Inhabitant of
this
state
one
year
next
preceding
an
election,
andfor
the
last
four
months
a
resident
of
the
county,
and
tor
the
last twenty days
a
resident
ot
the
election
district
In
which
he
may
offer
his vote."
By
the fourteenth
amendment
to
the
constitution
It
Is declared
that
"all
per
sons born
or
naturalized
In
the
United
States
and
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
thereof
are
citizens
of the
United
States and
of the
state
wherein
they
reside,"
and
by
force
of
this
language every
citizen
of the
Unitli!d
States
Is a citizen
ofthe
state
whereinhe resides.
It
Is
not
enough
to
confer
citizenship
on
the
defendant
that
he
was
born
In
theUnited
States.
It
must
also
appear
that
he
was
"subject to
the
jurisdiction
thereot,"
within
the
meaning
of the
fourteenth
amendment.
In
a general
sense
every
person
born
In
the
United
States
Is
within
the
jurisdiction
thereof
while
he remains
In
the
country.
Aliens, whUe residing here,
owe
a local
al-
legiance,
and
are
equally
bound
with
citi
zens to obey
all
general
laws
for
the
maintenance of
peace
andorderwhich
do
not
re
late
specially
to our own
citizens.
and
thE.'y
are
amenable
to
the
ordinary
tribunals of
the
country.
But
there
are
classes
of residents
who,
though
they
may
be
born
here,
are
not
subject
to
the
exercise
of
those
prerogatives
of
sovereignty wlrlch a
government
has
the
right to
enforce
over
Its
own
citizens.
and
over them
alone,
and
It
Is
to
these
that the
language
ot
the amendment
applies.
With
In
this
sense.
those
persons who,
thoughborn
here,
are
born
within
the
allegiance
of
a foreign sovereign,
or
of
another
govern
ment.
are
not subject
to the
jurisdiction
of
the
United
States.
The
children
ofambas
sadors,
though
In
fact
born
here,
are,
In
the
theory
of
the
law,
born within
the
allE.'gi-
ance ofthe
foreign
power
the
parE.'nt represents.
Indians
who
maintain
their
tribal
relationsWALLACE,
District
Judge.
The
defend-
are
the subjects
of
Independent
govern
ant,
an
Oneida Indian,
who
was
born
and
ments, and,
as
such,
not
In
the
jurisdictionhad always
resided
within the town
of
Le-
of
the
United States,
within
the
mE.'anlng
of
nox, Madison county, voted
for
repreRenta-
the
amendment,
becanse
the Indian
nationstlve
In congress
at
the
election
of
1876,
have
always
been
regarded
as
distinct
politi·clalmlng
to be
a citizen
of
the
United
States. cal communities,
between which
and
our
He was
Indicted
tor
lllega! voting, tried,
I
governmentcertain
International relations
and
convicted In
this
court. Sentence
was
WE.'re
to
be
maintained. These rl'latlons
are
snspended
bythecourt
In
order
that the
II
established
by treaties
to
the same
extent
questions
presented
onthe
trial,
and
which
as
with
foreign powers.
They
are
treated
as
l:!·5
Fed. Cas. page 1007]
sovereign communities, possessing
and
exercising
the right
of
free deliberation
and
action, but, In consideration of proteet1on,owing a qualified subjection
to
the
UnitedStates.
It
defendant's
tribe
continued
to
maintain
Its
tribal
Integrity,
and
he
continued
to
nlC-
ognlze
his
tribal
relations,
his
status as
acitizen would
notbe
affected
by
the
four
teenth
amendment;
but
such Is
not
his case.
His
tribe has
ceased
to
maintain
Its tribalIntegrity,
and
he
has
abandoned his
tribal
relations,
as
willhereafterappear;
and
be
cause of these
facts,
and
because
Indians
In
this
state
are
subject to
taxation,
he
Is a citizen, wltWn
the
meaning
of
the
fourteenthamE'ndment.
This
conclusion Is sanctioned
not
only
by
the
language of
the
fourteenthamendment,
but
Is fortified by
other
legislation
by
congress concerning citizenship.By
Act
Congo
1866, c.
31
[14
Stat.
27],
commonly known
as
the
"Civil
Rights
Bill," allpersons born In
the
United
States
and not
subject to
any
foreign power, excluding In
dians
not
taxed, are declared
to
be citizens
of the
United States. Native
Indians
In
thisstate
are
taxed. By
an
act
of
the
legisla
ture
passed In 1843,
native
Indians
are
authorized
to
purchase,
take,
hold,
and
conveyreal estate, and,
when they
become freeholders to
the
value
of
$100,
"are subject
totaxation
and
to
the
clvU jurisdiction
of
courts
of
lawand
equity
In
the
same
mannerand
to
the
same
extent
as
citizens."
Whenby
the
civil
rights
bill
Indiansnot taxed
were excluded from
the
classes upon whichcitizenship
was
conferred, upon well-settledrules
of
construction those
who
were
taxed
were
by
implication Include() in
the grant.
In
other
words, those
Indians
who
were tax
ed
were not
excepted from
tbe
class
whowere
declared
to
be citizens.Previous to
the
adoption
of
the
fourteentham(>ndment, It
had
been held
by
high
au-
thority
that
congress
might
naturalize In
dians
by
special
act
(7
OPt
Attys. Gen. 740);and,
of
course, If
this
could
be
done
by
special act, It could
by
a general law,
and
theact
In question would confer citizenship on
the
defendant.
No
doubt
can be
entertainedof
the power of
congress
to
declare
what
persons
shall be
recognized
as
citizens
of
the
lTnlted States,
and
when, by
the
fourteenthamendment,
such
citizens
were
declared
to
he cltb;ens of
the
several statE'S
In
which
they
should reside.
the
wbole subject of citizenship
was transferred
to
the
jurisdiction
of
congress.
and
the
rights
of
the
defendant
could
safely
rest
upon
the
act
In question.
It
is
not
necessary, however,
to
decide
that
the Indians
In
tbls
state
became citizens
by
force
of the
civil
rights
bUl.
I
prefer
to
re
gard
that
act
as
a contemporaneous con
struction
of the
meaning
ofthe
fourteenth
amendmE'nt.
The
civil
rights
bill
was
passedby
the
same
congress
which
sdopted
the
resolution
to
submit
the
fourteenth
amend-
(Cue
No.
15,048)
U.
S.
v.
ELM
ment
to
the
legislatures
of
the
several
sta
tes.Both
the amendment and the
clv11
rights
bill dealt
with the
question
of
citizenship,
and
In
the
declaration definIng
the
class
of
persons
to
whom It
was
extended language
almost Identical
was
used
In each. While,primarily,
these
measures, origInated for
the
protection
of natives of
African
descent, who,
by the
decisIon In
the
case
of
Scott v. Sandford. 19 How. [60 U. S.] 393,
were
held
not
to
be
cItizens
ofthe
United States,
wIthin
the
meaning
of
the
constitution, It
Is
not
to
be doubted
that
they
were Intended
to
con
fer the
rights
of
cItizenshIp upon
such
oth
ers
as, owIng to
the
peculiar
condition
ofour
national development,
were not
citizens
In
legal contemplation, though
by
bIrth
and
by allegiance
they were
or
mIght become entitled
to
recognition
as
such.
The
phraseology employed Is sumclentlybroad to Include
Indians
who
have abandon
ed
thl'1r
tribes
and
become so
far
Integrated
with
the
general body
of
citizens
that
the
states
Il!l
which
they
reside have subjected
them
to
the
duties
of
citizens
and
enforcedover
themthe
prerogatives
of
sovereignty.
Prior
to
the
adoption
of the
fourtl'enthamendment,
many
of the Indian
tribes had
become disintegrated,
and
the
members
hadabandoned
their
tribal
relations,
and
were
distributed among
and
assimilated
with
the
general body
of
citizens
of
the
state
in
which
they
lived, conformIng
to
the
same
usages,
and
their
rightsof
person
and
property reg
ulated
by
the
same
laws, which controlled
the
rest
of the inhabitants of
the
statE'.
They were
natives by
birth,
andwere not
aliens
In
allegiance.
Their
status
had been
d(>fined,
sometimes,
as that
of
alien resi
dents;
sometimes,
as
that
of
domestic subjects.
In
the
caseof
Scott
V.
Sandford, 19How.
[60U.
S.]
404,
Chief
Justice Taney
said:
"It
an
Individual
Indian
should leavehis tribe,
and take up
his abode
amongthewhite
population,
he
would
be
entitled
to
all
the
rights
and
privileges which would
be-
long to
an
emigrant from
any other
foreignpeople." A.ccepting
this
as
a correct
state-mentof
the
law,
It
would follow
that
such
an
Indian
was
not,
and
In
the
absence
of
special legislation could
not
become, a citizen.
He
could
not
be naturalized, because
the
naturalization
laws
only apply
to
per
SODS
born
out
of
the
United States.
The
re
marks of
Chief
Justice Taney were
applicable
to
that
class
of Indians
who
had
lett
their
tribes.
and thus
abandoned
theIr
tribal
rl'lations:
but
Instances
were
extant.
in
the
history
of
the
Indians
tribes,
where
the
tribal organization
had
become defunct,
and
where
the
IndIvidual IndIans
had
so
tar
been
recognized
as
citizens
ot
the state
that
theyhad been
authorized
to
acquire
and
hold
real
estate,
and
subjected to
taxation
and
to
the
civil jurisdiction
of
the
courts.
It
had
never
been
authoritatively
decided
whetheror
not
such
Indians
were citizens.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
United States v Elm, Dist Ct US, NDNY, 25 Fed Rep 1006, 23 Int Rev Rec 419 (1877) citizenship
Case No. 16,048.
UNITED STATES v. ELM.
[2 Cin. Law Bul. 307; 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 419.]
District Court, N. D. New York. Dec. 24, 1877.
CITIZENSHIP of INDIANS—DISINTEGRATED TRIBES —RIGHT TO VOTE.
[Indians born in… (More)
UNITED STATES v. ELM.
[2 Cin. Law Bul. 307; 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 419.]
District Court, N. D. New York. Dec. 24, 1877.
CITIZENSHIP of INDIANS—DISINTEGRATED TRIBES —RIGHT TO VOTE.
[Indians born in… (More)
203
Reads
3
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
