ledged limits of the State of New York, and had never been formerly ceded by the State to the United States. The Supreme Court of the State of New York decided, Chief Justice SPENCER writing the opinion, that the State Courts had jurisdiction of the offence. They held that it was beyond all doubt that the United States acquired no territorial rights to any portion of the State of New York, in virtue of the treaties of 1783 and 1794, and that, when Great Britain, in accordance with these treaties, withdrew its garrisons from any place, it was for the benefit of the several States within whose limits the garrisons were. And they further held, that the occupation of the fort by the troops of the United States, since its evacuation by the British, could not be considered as evidence of a right in the general government to the post itself, nor as an act hostile to the rights of the State of New York. A somewhat similar question came before the Supreme Court of Kansas, in respect to a crime committed on the military reservation at Fort Leavenworth. That reservation had been acquired by the United States as a part of the Territory of Louisiana, and had been used for military purposes. But in the organic Act, and in the Act admitting the Territory as a State, there had been no reservation of jurisdiction over the soil in question. And there never had been any cession of the property by the State to the United States. It was accordingly held in Clay v. State, 4 Kansas, 49 (1866), that the State Courts had jurisdiction of the offence of larceny committed within Fort Leavenworth.

The question of jurisdiction over offences committed upon Indian Reservations has been before the Courts in a number of cases. The principle has been laid down that when a Territory is admitted as a State, without any reservation in the enabling or organic Act, the Federal Courts have no jurisdic tion over offences committed within what are known as Indian Reservations. Thus in United States v. Ward, 1 Woolworth C. C. 17 (1863), a white man had been indicted for the murder of a white man committed on an Indian Reservation in Kansas, and it was held that the Federal Courts were without jurisdiction. And on a similar state of facts, the State Courts of Nebraska held that they had jurisdiction over an

offence committed by one white man on another, within an Indian Reservation in that State: Marion v. State, 16 Neb. 358 (1884); s. c. 20 Id. 233, 247 (1886). In the above cases, the crimes were committed by white men upon white men. There is, however, no question but that the State can punish its own citizens for crimes committed on such territory against the Indians. See U. S. v. Cisna, 1 McLean, 254, 263 (1835). Of course, if the United States, in the organic or enabling Act, admitting the State to the Union, reserved its jurisdiction over the Indian Reservations, within the outside boundaries of such State, the jurisdiction over offences committed in such places would, unquestionably, be in the United States Courts. See United States v. Rogers, 4 How. (U.S.) 567, 572 (1846). When, however, the State comes in without any such restrictions or reservations, it has been held to have the right to extend its criminal laws over Indians living on the Reservations: State v. Foreman, 8 Yerger (Tenn.), 256 (1835); State v. Tassels, Dudley (Ga.), 229 (1830); State v. Ta-cha-na-tah, 64 N. C. 614 (1870); State v. Dortater, 47 Wis. 278 (1879); State v. McKenney, 18 Nev. 182 (1883). In the case last above cited, it was decided that while the State had the right to extend its criminal laws over Indians living in tribal relations on Reservations, yet State laws do not apply to them unless they are so expressed. And it was held that the State Courts of Nevada had no jurisdiction over an offence committed by an Indian on an Indian, both of whom were members of an organized tribe, living on a Reservation, and having laws for the government of their internal affairs. But the Supreme Court of the United States has recently made a very important decision on the subject we are now considering. In United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886), that Court decides, Mr. Justice MILLER writing the opinion, that Congress can constitutionally pass a law, making it a crime for one Indian to commit murder upon another Indian, upon an Indian Reservation, situated wholly within the limits of a State, and making the Indian so offending subject to be tried in the same Courts and in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as are all other persons committing the crime of murder "within the exclu

sive jurisdiction of the United States." It had previously been held that Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate intercourse with the Indian tribes, might define and punish crimes committed by white men upon the person or property of an Indian, and vice versa, within as well as without the limits of a State: United States v. Martin, 8 Sawyer, 473 (1883); United States v. Bridleman, 7 Id. 243 (1881). But the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, above referred to, is placed on the broad ground that the Indians are the wards of the United States and that the government has the right to protect them.

We have hitherto considered crimes committed on Indian Reservations. But a word must be added as to crimes committed by Indians off their Reservations. It has been decided that United States Courts have no jurisdiction over Indians, living on Indian Reservations, who commit crimes on white men, while off their Reservations. The Courts of the State in which the crime is committed, have jurisdiction in such cases: United States v. Yellow Sun, 1 Dillon, 271 (1870). And to the same point, see United States v. Sacoodacot, 1 Abbott (U. S. C. C.) 377 (1870).

Each State possesses exclusive power to provide for the punishment of offences within its own limits, except in so far as its power may have been surrendered to the government of the United States by the Federal Constitution: State v. Chapman, 17 Ark. 561, 565 (1856). And within the State, crimes must be tried in the county in which the criminal act was committed: State v. Wyckoff, 31 N. J. L. 65, 68 (1864).

It is a very old rule of the common law that requires every offence tried in the common law Courts, to be inquired of in the county where the act took place. The peculiar character of the early jury affords an explanation and reason for the rule. Jurors were originally witnesses as well as triers, and were expected to act upon their own knowledge of the facts involved, and of the character of the witnesses on either side. But when they became simply triers of fact, the rule was already firmly established, and it was seen that there were marked and strong advantages in selecting the jurors from the county in which the crime had been committed. It would

be a great burden and injustice, if a man could be carried to a distant part of the State and compelled there to make his defence at a distance from the place in which the act complained of occurred. And so the old rule was retained, even after the original reason for its existence had ceased. The same principle is observed in the criminal jurisdiction of the Federal government. For the judicial purposes of that government, the States are not divided into counties, but are organized into districts. In some of the States there is but one judicial district, while in others there are two or more of them. And the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares that " In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." The denial of the right to a trial by a jury of the vicinage is one of the causes which led to a separation from the mother country. The Declaration of Independence arraigns George III.: “For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offences."

Personal presence at the place where the crime is perpetrated, or even within the State where the crime is committed, is not always indispensable to confer jurisdiction on the Courts of such place or State. For while the offender may not be corporally present, he may be there by the instrument or agent used to effect his purpose. If a person outside the State acts within the State through an innocent agent, he is amenable to the law of the State. Thus in Barkhamsted v. Parsons, 3 Conn. 1, 8 (1819), it is said: "The principle of common law, qui facit per alium, facit per se, is of universal application, both in criminal and civil cases, and he who does an act in this State by his agent, is considered as if he had done it in his own proper person." And so in The People v. Adams, 3 Denio, 190, 210 (1846), where it is said: “True, the defendant was not personally within this State, but he was here in purpose and design, and acted by his authorized agents. Qui facit per alium, facit per se. The agents employed were innocent, and he alone was guilty. An offence was thus committed, and there must have been a guilty offender, for it would be somewhat worse than absurd to hold

that any act could be a crime, if no one was criminal. Here the crime was perpetrated within this State, and over that our Courts have an undoubted jurisdiction. This necessarily gives to them jurisdiction over the criminal. Crimen trahit personam."

When one is guilty only as an accessory before the fact, the rule has been that he can only be tried in the place where his guilty act of accessoryship took place. Thus, when several persons entered into a conspiracy in Ohio to burn a steamboat, and the boat was burned in Arkansas, the Supreme Court of the latter State held that one of the confederates, who had remained in Ohio and was simply an accessory before the fact, could not be tried in the Courts of Arkansas: State v. Chapin, 17 Ark. 561 (1856). And so when the accused made arrangements in New York with a confederate to go into New Jersey and steal certain property, which the latter did, the former remaining in New York, it was held that the former, being simply an accessory before the fact, could not be tried in the Courts of New Jersey: State v. Wyckoff, supra. And other cases there are to the same effect: Johns v. State, 19 Ind. 421 (1862); State v. Moore, 26 N. H. 448 (1853). This doctrine was repudiated by the Supreme Court of Connecticut, in State v. Grady, 34 Conn. 118 (1867). The defendants conspired, with certain accomplices, in the city of New York, to commit the crime of larceny in the State of Connecticut, and the larceny was accordingly committed. It was claimed as to certain of the defendants, that the Connecticut Court had no jurisdiction to try them, notwithstanding they had assisted in the initiation of the plot in New York, inasmuch as they did not come into the State and assist personally in the commission of the crime. But it was held that the Court might punish their offence, having obtained jurisdiction of their person. As the question is quite important, it may be well to notice the grounds upon which the conclusion was based. The Court say: "The general proposition that no man is to suffer criminally for what he does out of the territorial limits of the country, if applied to a case where the act is completed out of the country, is correct; but it is the highest injustice that a man should be protected in