indictment charges the crime of murder committed upon one William Fleming, within the White Mountain Indian Reservation, in the second judicial district of the territory of Arizona. The petition alleges that the petitioner is a citizen of the United States of African descent; that William Fleming, the person killed, was also a negro; that the second judicial district of Arizona is composed of four counties, one of them being the county of Gila; and that the White Mountain Indian Reservation is within said county of Gila. The reservation, therefore, is within the territorial limits of the second judicial district, but the contention is that the district court of that district, sitting as a United States court, did not have jurisdiction, but that it was vested alone in the district court sitting as a territorial court; and that the indictment should have run in the name of the people of the territory, instead of in the name of the United States of America. The second contention is that the grand jury which indicted him was not a legally constituted tribunal, in that it was composed of only 15 persons. In this respect it is admitted that by the laws of the territory of Arizona, in force until March 22, 1889, grand juries were to be composed of not less than 13 nor more than 15 members, (Rev. St. Ariz. p. 384, § 2164,) but it is claimed that on that day a law came into force by which the number of members of a grand jury was increased, and required to be not less than 17 nor more than 23. Upon these two propositions the petitioner denies the validity of the sentence against him, and asks that he be discharged from custody. his argument. His proposition is that "congress, by act approved March 3, 1885, (23 St. 385,) conferred upon the territory and her courts full jurisdiction of the offense of murder when committed on an Indian reservation by an Indian. Ex Parte Gon-sha-yee, 130 U. S. 343, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 542. This offense had heretofore, when committed in such place by others than an Indian, been cognizable by the courts of the United States under section 2145, Rev. St. The petitioner believes that the United States, by yielding up a part of her jurisdiction over the offense of murder when committed on an Indian reservation, lost all,-that is, that her jurisdiction of the offense in the particular place must be 'sole and exclusive,' or will not exist at all; that it cannot be that there shall be one law and one mode of trial for a murder in a particular place if committed by an Indian, and another law and mode of trial for the identical offense in the same place committed by a white man or a negro. We are unable to yield our assent to this argument. The question is one of statutory construction. The jurisdiction of the United States over these reservations, and the power of congress to provide for the punishment of all offenses committed therein, by whomsoever committed, are not open questions. U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1109. And this power being a general one, congress may provide for the punishment of one class of offenses in one court, and another class in a different court. There is no necessity for, and no constitutional provision compelling, full and exclusive jurisdiction in one tribunal, and the policy of congress for a long time has been to give only a limited jurisdiction to the United States courts. Section 2145 extends to the Indian country the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of crimes committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, except as to crimes the punishment of which is otherwise expressly provided for. This Indian reservation is a part of the Indian country within the meaning of that section. Bates v. Clark, 95 U. S. 204; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556,3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396. But this extension of the criminal laws of the United States over the Indian country is limited by the section immediately suc With respect to the first question, it may be observed that the White Mountain Indian Reservation was a legally constituted Indian reservation. True, when the territory of Arizona was organized, on February 24, 1863, (12 St. 664,) there was no such reservation; and it was created in the first instance by order of the president in 1871. Whatever doubts there might have been, if any, as to the validity of such executive order, are put at rest by the act of congress of February 8, 1887, (24 St. 388,) the first clause of which is that in all cases where any tribe or band of Indians has been, or shall hereafter be, located upon any reservation created for their use, either by treaty stip-ceeding, (section 2146,) as follows: "The ulations or by virtue of an act of congress or executive order setting apart the same for their use, the president of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized, whenever in his opinion any reservation, or any part thereof, of such Indians is advantageous for agricultural and grazing purposes, to cause said reservation, or any part thereof, to be surveyed, or resurveyed if necessary, and to allot the lands in said reservation in severalty to any Indian located thereon, in quantities as follows." The necessary effect of this legislative recognition was to confirm the executive order, and establish beyond challenge the Indian title to this reservation. Indeed, the fact that this is an Indian reservation is not contested by the petitioner, but rather assumed by him in preceding section shall not be construed to extend to crimes committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian, nor to any Indian committing any offense in the Indian country who has been punished by the local law of the tribe, or to any case where, by treaty stipulations, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is or may be secured to the Indian tribes respectively." So that before the act of 1885 the jurisdiction of the United States courts was not sole and exclusive over all offenses committed within the limits of an Indian reservation. The words "sole and exclusive," in section 2145 do not apply to the jurisdiction extended over the Indian country, but are only used in the description of the laws which are extended to it. The effect of the act of 1885 was not to transfer to territorial courts a part of the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of United States courts, but only a part of the limited jurisdiction then exercised by such courts, together with jurisdiction over offenses not theretofore vested therein. The argument of the petitioner therefore fails. There has been no transfer of part of a sole and exclusive jurisdiction, carrying by implication, even in the absence of express lan. guage, a transfer of all jurisdiction, but only a transfer of part of an already limited jurisdiction, and neither by language nor implication transferring that theretofore vested and not in terms transferred. We may here, in passing, notice that the distinction between district courts when sitting as courts of the territory, and when sitting as courts of the United States was fully developed and explained in the case of Ex parte Gon-sha-yee supra; that by section 629, Rev. St., the circuit courts of the United States are given jurisdiction of crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States; and that by the act organizing the territory of New Mexico, of September 9, 1850, (9 St. 446,) and the subsequent act of February 24, 1863, (12 St. 664,) organizing the territory of Arizona, the district courts of the latter territory were given the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the circuit and district courts of the United States. It follows that as the circuit courts of the United States have jurisdiction over the crime of murder committed within any fort, arsenal, or other place within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, so prior to 1885 the district courts of a territory had jurisdiction over the crime of murder committed by any person other than an Indian upon an Indian reservation within its territorial limits, and that such Jurisdiction has not been taken away by the legislation of that year. The first contention of petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained. The second is equally untenable. His proposition is that the grand jury which indicted him was not a legally constitut. ed tribunal, in that it was composed of only 15 members, whereas, by an act of the legislature of the territory of Arizona passed on March 12, 1889, a day before that upon which the offense is charged to have been committed, it was required that grand juries should be composed of not less than 17 nor more than 23 members. The response thereto is that no such act was passed, and that, even if it were, the defect in the number of grand jurors did not vitiate the entire proceedings, so that they could be challenged collaterally on habeas corpus, but was only a matter of error, to be corrected by proceedings in error. It appears from the record that a challenge to the grand jury was made by the petitioner and overruled, but the ground here presented was not taken in such challenge. With regard to this supposed act of the legislature, the official volume of the acts and resolutions of the legislative assembly of Arizona of the year 1889, certified by the secretary of the territory, contains no such act. It is claimed, however, that a bill passed both houses of the assembly,-passing the house on March 8, 1889, and the council March 9, 1889,-as appears from the as sembly journals, and on March 12th was properly certified and placed in the hands of the governor for his action; that he did not within 10 days either approve by signing it or return it without his signature to the house in which it originated; and that the assembly continued in sesson until the 10th day of April, which was more than 10 days after the bill was placed in the hands of the governor, whereby the bill passed into a law. The contention on behalf of the government is that by virtue of the act of congress of December 23, 1880, (21 St. 312,) which reads as follows: "The session of the legislative assemblies of the various territories of the United States shall be limited to sixty days' duration, "-the session for the year 1889 was by law terminated on the 21st day of March, 60 days from the day (January 21st) on which by law and in fact it commenced. It is urged that the 60 days mentioned in the statute means 60 calendar days, and that at the expiration of such 60 days the session terminates as a matter of law, and the legislative assembly has no power to do any valid act thereafter, or even to remain in session. The petitioner insists that the 60 days means 60 legislative days,-days in which the legislature is actually in session; that the legislature acted upon this construction by continuing in session until the 10th day of April, and was thus a de facto legislature, at least. This presents an interesting question of statutory construction, one into which, however, we deem it unnecessary to enter. As it is a question, if it had been duly presented to the district court, a court having jurisdiction over the offense and the prisoner, and by it erroneously decided, can it be that such erroneous decision would have vitiated the proceedings and rendered void? the sentence thereafter rendered? We think not. Does the fact that the question was not presented put the case in any worse position than if presented and erroneously decided? Assuming that this act of 1889 was legally passed and was a law of the territory, let us see what changes were accomplished by it. Prior thereto, as we have noticed, grand juries were to be composed of not less than 13 nor more than 15 members. The amend ment made by this act provided that they should be composed of not less than 17 nor more than 23 members. The record discloses that there were but 15 members. Prior to 1889 the territorial law authorized the finding of an indictment on the concur rence of 12 grand jurors. Rev. St. Ariz. p. 778, § 1430. A similar provision is found in the federal statutes. Rev. St. U. S. § 1021. The act of 1889 made no change in this respect; so, whether the grand jury was composed of 13, the lowest number sufficient under the prior law, or 23, the highest number named in the act of 1889, the concurrence of 12 would have required the finding of an indictment. By petitioner's argument, if there had been 2 more grand 629. 089. 682 especially a judgment withdrawn by law from the revision of this court, is not that judgment in itself sufficient cause? Can the court, upon this writ, look beyond the* judgment and re-examine the charges on which it was rendered? A judgment in its nature concludes the subject on which it is rendered, and pronounces the law of the case. The judgment of a court of record, whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive to all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact by deciding it." And again: "An im. prisonment under a judgment cannot be unlawful unless that judgment be an absolute nullity; and it is not a nullity if the court has general jurisdiction of the subject, although it should be erroneous. The circuit court for the District of Colum. bia is a court of record, having general jurisdiction over criminal cases. An of Jurors it would have been a legal body. If the 2 had been present, and had voted against the indictment, still such opposing votes would not have prevented its finding by the concurrence of the 12 who did in fact vote in its favor. It would seem, therefore, as though the error was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the petitioner. Again, by section 1392 of the Arizona Penal Code, (Rev. St. Ariz. 775,) "a person held to answer to a charge for a public offense can take advantage of any objection to the panel, or to an individual grand juror, in no other mode than by challenge. A challenge, as heretofore stated, was in fact made, but not on the ground now presented. When by statute a particular way is prescribed for raising an objection, and a party neglects to pursue the statutory way, and the objection is one which could have been cured at the time if attention had been called to it, must he not be adjudged to have waived that objection? Montgom-fense cognizable in any court is cognizable ery v. State, 3 Kan. 263. In that case, which was one in which an irregularity in impaneling a jury was the error complained of, the court observed: "Under the Criminal Code a party charged with crime may have the benefit of all just matters of defense as well as of all defects and imperfections in the proceedings against him on the part of the state which tend to prejudice his rights; but he must assert his privilege in the proper way and at the proper time, or he may be deemed to have waived it." If it be said that the section of the Arizona Penal Code does not apply to proceedings in the district courts sitting as United States courts, we pass to the general question whether a deficiency in the number of grand jurors prescribed by law, there being present and acting a greater number than that requisite for the finding of an indictinent, is such a defect as, though unnoticed by the prisoner until after trial and sentence, vitiates the entire proceedings and compels his discharge on habeas corpus. That question must be answered in the negative. The case of Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, is an early and leading case on the question of the power of this court to examine on habeas corpus into the proceedings of a court of general criminal ju- | risdiction. In that case Watkins had been convicted in the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, a court of general criminal jurisdiction. He filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, setting forth a copy of the indict-matter of error and matter of jurisdiction ment and sentence, and sought a discharge from custody on the ground that the indictment charged no offense punishable in the circuit court or of which it could take cognizance, and that therefore the proceedings were coram non judice and totally void. The court unanimously, Chief Justice MARSHALL delivering the opinion, denied the application. quote as follows: "This writ is, as has been said, in the nature of a writ of error, which brings up the body of the prisoner, with the cause of commitment. The court can undoubtedly inquire into the sufficiency of that cause; but if it be the judg ment of a court of competent jurisdiction, We in that court. If the offense be punishable was noticed, for it was said: "Upon prin- 585 whether the grand jury should be consti- | tuted of 15 or 17 members was a matter which must necessarily be considered and determined by the trial court, its ruling thereon, however erroneous, would seem within the above authorities to present simply a matter of error, and not be sufficient to oust the jurisdiction. Indeed, it may be considered doubtful, at least, whether such a defect is not waived if not taken advantage of before trial and judgment. In the case of U. S. v. Gale, 109 U. S. 65, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, a question as to the competency of the grand jury was presented for the first time on a motion in arrest of judgment, and from the decision of the trial court came to this court on a certificate of division. The objection was that in the organization of the grand jury the court, under the authority of section 820, Rev. St. excluded from the panel persons otherwise qualified, who voluntarily took part in the Rebellion. The unconstitutionality of this section was asserted, but this court declined to pass upon that question, holding that the defendants, by pleading to the indictment and going to trial without making any objection to the grand jury, waived any right of subsequent complaint on account thereof. Mr. Justice BRADLEY, delivering the opinion of the court, reviews the authorities at length, and shows that they clearly sustain the conclusion announced. The opinion is carefully guarded, and does not reach to the precise question here presented; but its implication, and the drift of the authorities referred to, is that a defect in the constitution or organization of a grand jury which does not prevent the presence of 12 competent jurors, by whose votes the indictment is found, and which could have been cured if the attention of the court had been called to it at the time, or promptly remedied by the impaneling of a competent grand jury, is waived if the defendant treats the indictment as sufficient, pleads not guilty, and goes to trial on the merits of the charge. There is good sense in this conclusion. The indictment is the charge of the state against the defendant, the pleading by which he is informed of the fact, and the nature and scope of the accusation. When that indictment is presented, that accusation made, that pleading filed, the accused has two courses of procedure open to him. He may question the propriety of the accusation, the manner in which it has been presented, the source from which it proceeds, and have these matters promptly and properly determined, or, waiving them, he may put in issue the truth of the accusation and demand the judgment of his peers on the merits of the charge. If he omits the former and chooses the latter, he ought not, when defeated on the latter, when found guilty of the crime charged, to be permitted to go back to the former and inquire as to the manner and means by which the charge was presented. See, upon this question, Whart. Crim. Pl. § 353; 1 Chit. Crim. Law, p. 309; People v. Robinson, 2 Parker, Crim. R. 235-308, and following; 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. § 884; Shropshire v. State, 12 Ark. 190. If it be, therefore, a doubtful 1. Under Comp. Laws N. M. § 2005, which provides that "for the purpose of hearing application for and issuing writs of mandamus the district court shall be regarded as open at all times wherever the judge of such court may be within the territory," a peremptory writ may be issued by a judge in vacation. 2. Though section 2002 provides for the imposition of a fine for the refusal or neglect of an officer to perform a duty enjoined by a writ of mandamus, payment of which fine shall be a bar to an action for any penalty incurred by him for such neglect or refusal, this does not affect the power of the court to punish as a contempt the disobedience of the writ or to enforce obedience by imprisonment. 3. On petition for a writ of mandamus by a board of county commissioners to compel the clerk of the board to recognize them as such and to perform his duties, the clerk's answer that petitioners were not duly-elected commissioners, but that cther persons were, does not so involve their title to office as that the writ should be refused on the ground that there is an adequate remedy at law in quo warranto proceedings. Affirming 25 Pac. Rep. 948. Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico. Wm. M. Springer, C. H. Gildersleeve, and Thomas Smith, for appellant. John H. Knaebel, for appellee. BREWER, J. On the 13th of January, 1891, Abraham Staab, William H. Nesbitt, and Juan Garcia filed in the district court of the first judicial district of the territory of New Mexico, and presented to the judge thereof, their petition, in which they set forth certain facts, showing, as they claimed, that they had been elected, at the general election in November preceding, members of the board of county commissioners of Santa Fe county, in the territory of New Mexico; and further alleged that on the 2d day of January, 1891, they had duly qualified as such commissioners; that at the same election Pedro Delgado, had been duly elected probate clerk of said county, and had qualified as such officer; that by virtue thereof he became and was the acting clerk of the board of county commissioners, and had possession of the records, books, files, and papers of that office; that after their qualification as such board they demanded of him to produce the books, and to record their proceedings as such board; and that he refused so to do, or to in any manner recog. nize them as the board of county commis sioners. They prayed that a writ of mandamus might issue, commanding him to recognize them as the board of county commissioners, that he act with them as such board, and that he enter of record their proceedings as a board. Upon this petition an alternative writ was issued, and on the 15th day of January, in obedience to such writ, appellant appeared and filed his answer, alleging facts which, as he claimed, showed that three other persons were at the November election elected county commissioners and that the pe titioners were not; and further averring that two of those other persons, on the 1st of January, 1891, duly qualified as members of the board of county commissioners, entered into possession and assumed the duties of such office, met on that day in the court-house of the county as the board of county commissioners, and proceeded to transact the business of the county; and that they were still in possession of their offices of county commissioners. He admitted that he refused to recognize the petitioners as a board of county commissioners, and alleged as his reason therefor that they were not the legally elected commissioners, and had never been in possession of such offices. On the same day (January 15th) the matter came on to be heard on these pleadings, and a peremptory mandamus was ordered, commanding the appellant that he record on the records of the county the proceedings of the petitioners as the board of county commissioners of the county, and that in all things he recognize them as the only lawful county commissioners of the county. Disobeying the peremptory writ, he was brought up on an attach ment for contempt, and committed to jail until he should purge himself thereof by obeying the writ. Instead of taking steps to review this judgment directly, by proceedings in error in the supreme court of the territory, appellant, on the 23d of January, filed in that court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On January 31st a hearing was had thereon, and it was denied; from which judgment this appeal has been taken to this court. 25 Pac. Rep. 948. The attack upon the contempt proceedings is in a collateral way by habeas corpus, and the inquiry is one of jurisdiction. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 203; Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18; Ex parte Yar. brough, 110 U. S. 651, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; Cuddy, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 280, 285, 286, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 703; Ex parte Wilson, 140 U. S., 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 870. In Ex parte Yarbrough one question was as to the conformity of the indictment to the provisions of the statute; and it was held that it "cannot be looked into on a writ of habeas corpus limited to an inquiry Into the existence of jurisdiction on the part of that court. This narrows the range of inquiry. It is objected that the peremptory writ was void because ordered in vacation by the judge, and not after trial before a jury, in the court, in term time. Section 2005 of the Compiled Laws of the territory provides: "For the purpose of hearing application for and issuing writs of mandamus the district court shall be regarded as open at all times wherever the judge of such court may be within the territory." This section gives full authority for these proceedings. The original application was entitled "in the court,” though addressed to the judge, as was proper. The hearing and judgment were by the court, and the peremptory mandamus was issued by direction of the court, and the power of the legislature to provide that the court shall always be open for certain purposes cannot be doubted. A somewhat similar provision has been made for the circuit courts of the United States in respect to the supervision of elections. Rev. St. § 2013. While no jury was had, apparently, none was de. manded, and the determination of the facts by a jury in a mandamus case is not a necessary preliminary to a valid judgment. Again, it is objected that the punishment is different from that permissible in cases of mandamus, and section 2002 ofe the Compiled Laws is cited. That reads as follows: "Whenever a peremptory mandamus is directed to a public officer, body, or board, commanding the performance of any public duty specially enjoined by law, if it appears to the court that such officer or any member of such body or board, without just excuse, refuses or neglects to perform the duty so enjoined, the court may impose a fine not exceeding $250 upon every such officer or member of such body or board. Such fine, when collected, shall be paid into the territorial treasury, and the payment of such fine is a bar to an action for any penalty incurred by such officer or member of such body or board by reason of his refusal or neglect to perform the duty so enjoined.' But that section provides for the wrong done by the party in failing to discharge the duty imposed, and does not exclude the power of the court to punish for disobedience of the writ, or to compel obedience to the writ by imprisonment until compliance. The section quoted was taken from the legislation of the state of New York, (2 Rev. St. N. Y. p. 587, § 60,) and the scope of that section was considered by the New York court of appeals in People v. Railroad Co., 76 N. Y. 294. In that case the court thus interpreted the section: "We do not think that this provision was intended to prescribe the punishment for disobeying the writ, but that its object was to authorize the court to whom application should be made for a writ of mandamus against a public officer, body, or board, to compel the performance of a public duty specially enjoined by law, to impose a fine upon the officer, etc., for past neglect of the duty, in addition to awarding a peremptory mandamus compelling its performance, providing no just excuse is shown for such past neglect. This power of the court granting the mandamus to fine for past neglect was intended to obviate the necessity of a criminal prosecution under the statute which constitutes such neglect a misdemeanor, and to enable the court awarding the mandamus to dispose of the whole matter in one proceeding. The offense for which the fine is authorized to be imposed is not disobedience of the writ, but the unexcused neglect of duty of which the officer was guilty before the writ issued and which rendered the application necessary, and the fine may be imposed at the 889. |