Viewing page 65 of 100

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-62-

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Dundy, Judge.

"During the fifteen years in which I have been engaged in administrating the laws of my country, I have never been called upon to hear or decide a case that appealed so strongly to my sympathy as the one under consideration. On the one side we have a few of the remnants of a once numerous and powerful, but now weak, insignificant, unlettered and generally despised race. On the other, we have the representatives of one of the most powerful, most enlightened, and most christi^[[a]]nized nations of modern times. On the one side we have representatives of this wasted race coming into this national tribunal of ours asking for justice and liberty to enable them to adapt our boasted civilization...On the other side we have this magnificent, if not magnanimous, government, resisting this application.

..The reasoning advanced in support of my views, leads me to conclude:

"First: That an [[underlined]]Indian[[/underlined]] is a Person within the meaning of the laws of the United States, and has therefore the right to sue out a writ of habeas corpus in federal court or before a federal judge, in all cases where he may be confined, or in custody under color of authority of the United States, or where he is restrained of liberty in violation of the constitution or laws of