Samuel Freeman Miller

Name: United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court
Author: Samuel Freeman Miller

United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Samuel Freeman Miller. It explores elements such as the United States, Indian and offence.

Quotes from United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Freeman Miller)

Samuel Freeman Miller, United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court

“ The locality of the traffic can have nothing to do with the power. The right to exercise it in reference to any Indian tribe, or any person who is a member of such tribe, is absolute, without reference to the locality of the traffic, or the locality of the tribe, or of the member of the tribe with whom it is carried on. It is not, however, intended by these remarks to imply that this clause of the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate any other commerce, originated and ended within the limits of a single State, than commerce with the Indian tribes. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court

“ Ogden, to which we so often turn with profit when this clause of the Constitution is under consideration, 'commerce undoubtedly is traffic, but it is something more; it is intercourse.' The law before us professes to regulate traffic and intercourse with the Indian tribes. It manifestly does both. It relates to buying and selling and exchanging commodities, which is the essence of all commerce, and it regulates the intercourse between the citizens of the United States and those tribes, which is another branch of commerce, and a very important one. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court

“ An examination, however, of the several acts, which define generally the relative jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts of the United States, leaves no doubt that, in regard to all crimes, and offences, it was intended to make the jurisdiction concurrent, except in cases where the punishment is death. In that class of offences the jurisdiction is exclusive in the Circuit Courts. The present offence, however, is created after all of those acts were passed, and the law defining it only confers jurisdiction on the District Court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court

“ The Judiciary Act of 1789, of which these provisions constitute a part, is the one which, for the first time under our Federal Constitution, created the courts which were to exercise the judicial function of the government. The powers conferred by that act on the several courts which it created, and the lines by which it divided the powers of those courts from each other, and limited the powers of all of them under the Constitution, were intended to provide a general system for the administration of such powers as the Constitution authorized the Federal courts to exercise. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court

“ The first act declared that if any person sold spirituous liquor to an Indian in the Indian country he should forfeit five hundred dollars. The amended act punishes any person who shall sell to an Indian under charge of an Indian agent, or superintendent, appointed by the United States. The limitation to the Indian country is stricken out, and that requiring the Indian to be under charge of an agent or superintendent is substituted. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court

“ If by them those Indians are recognized as a tribe, this court must do the same. If they are a tribe of Indians, then, by the Constitution of the United States, they are placed, for certain purposes, within the control of the laws of Congress. This control extends, as we have already shown, to the subject of regulating the liquor traffic with them. This power residing in Congress, that body is necessarily supreme in its exercise. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court

“ On the first proposition the ground taken is, that the policy of the act, and its reasonable construction, limit its operation to the Indian country, or to reservations inhabited by Indian tribes. The policy of the act is the protection of those Indians who are, by treaty or otherwise, under the pupilage of the government, from the debasing influence of the use of spirits ”

Samuel Freeman Miller

Summary

Quotes from United States v. Holliday — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Freeman Miller)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature