A Murder on the Nooksack, and the Question of Who Pays for Justice
After Tawes killed William, the territory and the United States sparred over jurisdiction—exposing the legal limbo of non-treaty Indians in Washington Territory.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
A LEGAL QUESTION.—The Indian Tawes, who murdered Indian William on the upper Nooksack river a short time since, had a preliminary examination at Port Townsend and was bound over for trial at the next term of Court. There seems to be some doubt as to how the case will be regarded, and whether the United States or the Territory will pay the expenses. This being a non-treaty Indian, it is thought the Territory will have to pay the bill, while others consider the United States as having exclusive jurisdiction over all Indians, non-treaty or otherwise, who have not severed their tribal relations and become civilized.
“There seems to be some doubt as to how the case will be regarded, and whether the United States or the Territory will pay the expenses.”
The fight over which government—federal or state—holds criminal jurisdiction over Native people is far from settled. From the Supreme Court's 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma decision to ongoing state-tribal compact negotiations, the question of who pays for and prosecutes justice on Indigenous land still echoes today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.