n americans and criminal on the minnesota … americans and criminal justice on the minnesota...

NATIVEAMERICANS

and CRIMINALJUSTICE on theMINNESOTA

FRONTIER

Minute books of the Ramsey County District Court, recording proceedings for 1850–54 and 1854–56. The beautifully scripted notes were written with a quill pen.

NATIVEAMERICANS

CRIMINALJUSTICEMINNESOTA

FRONTIERn One measure of the legitimacy

of a criminal-justice system is how

well it treats those who are not of

the dominant race or culture. The

rule of law—the basis for Anglo-

American legal and constitutional

institutions—requires consistent

enforcement for the system to

retain integrity. Strict adherence

to legal procedure, regardless of

the status of the individuals, is

one means to ensure consistent

application of the rule of law.

n In popular stereotypes of the

American frontier, the laws that

Jane Lamm Carroll Dr. Carroll is a historian with the St. Paul Dis-trict, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and teachesAmerican history at the College of St. Catherine.

MN History Text 55/2 8/20/07 11:01 AM Page 46

MH 55-2 Summer 96.pdf 4MH 55-2 Summer 96.pdf 4 8/20/07 12:24:36 PM8/20/07 12:24:36 PM

48 MINNESOTA HISTORY

did exist were not consistently enforced and, inany case, did not apply to Indian people. Min-nesota’s early history, on the other hand, indi-cates that most settlers, despite their evidentracism, believed that the rule of law applied toNative Americans as well as whites. The ever-present tension between racism and the rule oflaw, however, made the outcomes of cases un-predictable; some Indian people received fairtreatment within the criminal-justice systemwhile others did not. The real story of criminaljustice on the frontier is usually more interest-ing and complex than the popular stereotype.1

In 1849, when the Territory of Minnesotawas established, the Ojibway (Chippewa) con-trolled most of its northern half while theDakota (Sioux) possessed the southern part.The Mdewakanton or eastern bands of Dakotalived in southeastern Minnesota along the Mis-sissippi and Minnesota Rivers. The Mississippibands of Ojibway lived in numerous villagesscattered along the rivers and lakes of the terri-tory’s northern and north-central region. Ojib-way villages closest to St. Paul were located atMille Lacs Lake, the Snake River, Gull Lake,and the Crow Wing River.2

In the 1851 treaties of Mendota and Tra-verse des Sioux, the government pressured theDakota into giving up their remaining lands inMinnesota except for a narrow stretch alongthe Minnesota River in the west-central region.Throughout the territorial period, however,government officials failed to permanently dis-lodge the Mdewakantons from their traditionalvillages. The repeated late arrival of annuitypayments, limited success of the government’sagricultural program, general dissatisfactionwith reservation life, and, finally, starvation ledmany Dakota to abandon the reservation andreturn east.3 As a result, during the 1850s, theDakota were frequently seen in and aroundSt. Paul.

The Ojibway were less conspicuous than theDakota in St. Paul but were nevertheless fre-quent visitors. In addition, the federal govern-

ment had granted the Winnebago (Ho-Chunk)of Wisconsin a reservation at Long Prairie in1848. Although the reservation only existed fora few years, members of this Wisconsin tribealso frequented St. Paul.4

The St. Croix Valley had been a hotly con-tested zone between the Dakota and Ojibway,the scene of numerous battles and attacks.Raids and counterraids continued as late as themid-1850s, despite Euro-American settlement.August L. Larpenteur, a trader who arrived inSt. Paul in 1842, recalled that an Ojibway raidon Little Crow’s band at Kaposia a year earlierled to a bloody battle on the St. Croix at whatwould become Stillwater. According to Lar-penteur, “For a long time, even after I camehere, the excitement in regard to this raid bythe Chippewas was the topic of almost everyday’s conversation, and a Chippewa Indian wassupposed to be hidden behind every bush.” In1850, some 20 miles east of Stillwater on theApple River in Wisconsin, a party of Dakotakilled 15 Ojibway. Three years later, Ojibwayraided the Dakota village of Shakopee on theMinnesota River.5

St. Paul newspapers reported intertribal vio-lence. The Minnesota Pioneer, for example,described the following incident in 1850:

At about 1 o’clock P.M., there was a greatexcitement in Saint Paul, Indians yelling ateach other across the river. . . . It seems newshas reached them that a party of Sioux wereovertaken, a short distance out of Saint Paul,and two murdered and three taken prisoners.At this moment, a company of the Sioux havestarted northward through town, stripped oftheir blankets, in pursuit of the dastardly mur-derers. This is the first blow (if the story istrue) struck by the Chippewas in revenge ofthe 14 of their tribe, murdered the other day,in the sugar camp, by the Sioux.6

Local criminal-justice officers usually leftconflicts between the Dakota and Ojibway tofederal officials: the commissioner of Indian

1 Jane Lamm Carroll, “Criminal Justice on the Minnesota Frontier, 1820–1857” (Ph.D. diss., University ofMinnesota, 1991), 311–32.

2 Mitchell E. Rubinstein and Alan R. Woolworth, “The Dakota and Ojibway,” in They Chose Minnesota: A Surveyof the State’s Ethnic Groups, ed. June D. Holmquist (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1981), 19–21.

3 Rubinstein and Woolworth, “Dakota and Ojibway,” 21.4 William W. Folwell, A History of Minnesota (rev. ed., St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1956), 1: 308–12.5 August L. Larpenteur, Reminiscences and Recollections of St. Paul and Its People, 1843–1898 (St. Paul: Minnesota

Historical Society, 1898), 21–22; Harold Hickerson, Ethnohistory of the Chippewa in Central Minnesota (New York:Garland Press, 1974); Edward D. Neill, “History of the St. Croix Valley,” in History of Washington County and the St.Croix Valley, ed. Charles M. Foote and George Warner (Minneapolis: North Star Publishing Co., 1881), 121, 125.

6 Minnesota Pioneer, May 16, 1850, p. 2.



SUMMER 1996 49

affairs (during this era, the territorial gover-nor), the Indian agent, and the commandant atFort Snelling. These men were more often thannot frustrated in their attempts to impose peaceor otherwise interfere in inter- and intratribalaffairs.7

In April 1853, after a series of raids andcounterattacks along the St. Croix and Minne-sota Rivers, the tribes clashed in the streets ofSt. Paul. A party of about 18 Ojibway enteredtown one evening and hid in an unfinishedbuilding in Lowertown. At daylight the partywatched for any Dakota coming up the Mis-sissippi River from the nearby village of Kaposia.When two Dakota sisters and their brother dis-embarked from a canoe and walked up thelevee to the trading house, the Ojibway shotand fatally wounded one of the women. TheDakota man fired at the attackers, chasing themdown Jackson Street with a gun.8

A contemporary, historian John FletcherWilliams, related the reaction of residents:

The firing and excitement attracted a num-ber of citizens, who, as soon as they learnedwhat had taken place, pursued the retreatingChippewas, whether to arrest them or for what

7 Carroll, “Criminal Justice,” 35–41; 285–86.8 Here and three paragraphs below, J. Fletcher

Williams, A History of the City of St. Paul to 1875 (1876;reprint, St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press,1983), 336–38.

Dakota village of Kaposia, summer of 1851, sketched by Frank B. Mayer

Hazaiyankawin, known to St. Paul settlers as Old Bets,whose sister was killed in the 1853 Ojibway attack

MN History Text 55/2 8/20/07 11:01 AM 9



purpose, no one hardly knew. They soon over-took the pagans, who, turning calmly aroundand confronting them, said: “White man, whydo you pursue us? This is none of your affair!Do you mean to interfere in our fights?” Noone knew what reply to make, and . . . [they]allowed the Chippewas to pass unmolested.

Although the crime occurred in St. Pauland fell under the jurisdiction of either thetown police or the Ramsey County sheriff, it wasthe territorial governor, Alexander Ramsey, whotook charge and requested that troops fromFort Snelling pursue the Ojibway attackers. Aplatoon of cavalry, led by a Dakota guide,tracked the perpetrators to St. Croix Falls, Wis-consin. The resulting skirmish left one Ojibwaydead, but the soldiers returned without anyprisoners. This ended the government’sattempt to punish the raiding party.

Federal authorities often found themselvesmediating between the two tribes. Their desirewas not so much to apply the rule of law but,instead, to maintain friendly relations with each

and reduce intertribal violence. To this end,they recognized and allowed Indians to practicecustoms such as restitution for violent acts in anattempt to break the cycle of raids and counter-raids that characterized Dakota-Ojibway rela-tions. For example, the Dakota scout who ledthe troops to the Ojibway raiding party in 1853was allowed to take the scalp of his fallen enemyas a trophy. Perhaps the officer in charge hopedthat this act would compensate the Dakota forthe attack, thus preventing a counterraid, orperhaps the soldiers and their commandingofficer did not much care what one Indian didto another.

The involvement of Governor Ramsey andfederal troops in lieu of town and county crimi-nal-justice systems was typical for cases involvingNative American victims and suspects. Althoughfederal law authorized local officials to investi-gate and prosecute crimes among NativeAmericans committed outside of Indian territo-ry, these officials were often content to abdicatejurisdiction. Perhaps they were either reluctantto pursue suspects into Indian villages and

St. Paul in 1851, showing Baptist Hill (now Mears Park) and First Baptist Church

MN History Text 55/2 8/20/07 11:01 AM 0


SUMMER 1996 51

camps or confused about jurisdiction—or per-haps they lacked concern about what NativeAmericans did to each other.9

In contrast, when Native Americans weresuspected of violence against whites, localauthorities did not hesitate to investigate andprosecute. An examination of several violentcrimes from Minnesota’s early history demon-strates that, when the accused was an Indian,the victim’s race determined whether the casewould be pursued to a final conclusion.

n The 1851 murder of a Winnebago man andthe events that followed indicate that thoseprosecuting Native Americans remained con-fused about jurisdiction. The discovery inSt. Paul of the body prompted a preliminaryinvestigation by the Ramsey County sheriff,coroner, and several other local officials. Thevictim had been stabbed to death. As witnesseshad seen him in the company of other Winne-bago several days earlier, Sheriff Cornelius P.Lull requested the commandant at Fort Snel-ling to send a squad of soldiers to the Winne-bago camp not far from town to investigate andarrest a suspect.10

Historian Williams gives the followingaccount of the investigation: “The officer incharge of the squad asked one of them, Che-en-u-wzhee-kaw, or Standing Lodge, if he knew any-thing of how their brother ‘Lo’ had met hisend, when Standing Lodge very coolly andunconcernedly replied, ‘I killed him!’” He fur-ther informed the officer that the dead manhad committed some crime or offense, which,“according to the Indian code, merited death,and that he, the speaker, had been selected togive him his quietus.”

After Standing Lodge’s confession, the sol-diers took him into custody although they werenot sure they had the jurisdiction to arrest him.They decided they needed to ascertain whetherthe law applied to him “as equally as if onewhite man had killed another.”

Standing Lodge went without protest toSt. Paul with the soldiers and spent the night inSheriff Lull’s carpenter shop (the county jailwas not yet completed). At the preliminaryexamination before the St. Paul justice of the

peace the next day, Standing Lodge openlyadmitted his guilt, but the presiding local offi-cials and onlookers disagreed over whether themurder case should proceed. According to Wil-liams, “Some urged to let him go, as it wouldonly expose the county to considerable cost toimprison and try him, and it was scarcely worthwhile to take note of all the quarrels and mur-ders among the Indians, as they were occurringevery few days, and but a few cared how manyIndians were killed. Others thought it oughtnot to be passed thus.”

Eventually it was agreed that StandingLodge should appear before the grand jury atthe next term of the Ramsey County DistrictCourt, which was to convene the followingmonth. To avoid the expense of boarding him,the justice of the peace released the accused onhis own recognizance.

In May the grand jury indicted StandingLodge, but he did not stand trial, “the Prose-cution not being ready to proceed.” Instead,the case was continued to the next term ofcourt in September. At that time Justice Aaron

9 Carroll, “Criminal Justice,” 35–41; William C. Canby, American Indian Law in a Nutshell (St. Paul: WestPublishing Co., 1981), 11–12, 94–96, 126, 158–60; Francis Paul Prucha, ed., Documents of United States Indian Policy(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), 66. Although the law was not precise, Native Americans acting out-side Indian Territory or off the reservation were presumed to be subject to the same laws and process as everyoneelse. The one explicit exception is in sec. 17 of the 1834 Trade and Intercourse Act, substituting a diplomaticprocess via the Indian agent when Indians committed property crimes against whites outside of Indian Territory.

10 Here and four paragraphs below, Williams, History of . . . St. Paul to 1875, 288–89.

Engraving of a Winnebago camp scene by Capt. SethEastman, published in 1852




Goodrich dismissed the case for lack of prose-cution. Standing Lodge, having given his wordto return, appeared promptly at both terms ofthe district court.11

In contrast to Standing Lodge’s case, therewas no reluctance on the part of St. Paul andRamsey County officials a year later when Yu-he-za or Yu-ha-zee, a Dakota man, was suspected ofkilling an immigrant woman. Bridget Keenerwas traveling in the Minnesota River valley withher family when they encountered a group ofDakota men who reportedly used “threateningactions and language.” Then, seemingly withoutprovocation, one of the Indians fatally shotMrs. Keener. The family carried her body backto St. Paul for burial.12

Thirty soldiers set out from Fort Snelling toapprehend the suspect. The Minnesota Democratprovides the following account of Yu-ha-zee’scapture: “On Friday last, the murderer was sur-rendered by his own band to the dragoons sentin pursuit of him. He belonged to the LittleRapids band, who, when he was delivered, sanghis death song, supposing that he would beimmediately executed.”13

The next day Yu-ha-zee appeared before ajustice of the peace for a preliminary hearing,after which he was committed to the St. Pauljail. Two days later, a grand jury indicted himfor first-degree murder. As the fall term of theRamsey County District Court was in session, Yu-ha-zee waited only one day to stand trial.14

Although the case file, including testimony,has not survived, the minutes of the RamseyCounty District Court show that there were

three witnesses for the prosecution and threefor the defense, the latter including GovernorRamsey. It is probable that Ramsey testifiedabout the illegal liquor trade in the territoryand its negative impact on Native Americans.The governor most likely spoke on Yu-ha-zee’sbehalf because the accused was intoxicated atthe time of the crime and therefore was a victimof the illegal sale of liquor. Ramsey expressedhis view on this subject a month later in hisannual address to the people of Minnesota:

In a former message I suggested the policy ofcultivating friendly relations with the Indianstribe [sic] within our borders, and I cannotrefrain from again in this place alluding to thesubject. . . . The Indians are well disposedtowards the whites, and the few offenses com-mitted by them have generally given as muchdissatisfaction to their own as to our people.In savage communities, as in civilized, a major-ity of the wrongs committed may be distinctlytraced to the use of ardent spirits, which inspite of the denunciations in law, and the dis-approbation of Public opinion, are still stealth-ily sold to the Indians.15

11 U.S. v. Cheenawzheekaw, Territorial Minutes,Apr. 1850–Feb. 1854, p. 109, and Territorial CriminalDocket, Apr. 3, 1850–Apr. 2, 1857, p. 66–both inRamsey Co. District Court Records, Minnesota StateArchives, Minnesota Historical Society (MHS), St.Paul; Williams, History of . . . St. Paul to 1875, 289–90.

12 Williams, History of . . . St. Paul to 1875, 331;Willis A. Gorman, Order of Execution, Mar. 25, 1854,Pardon Records, Gov. Willis A. GormanPapers, Minnesota Territorial Archives,MHS.

13 Minnesota Democrat, Nov. 3,1852, p. 2.

14 Williams, History of . . . St.Paul, 331–32.

15 U.S. v. Yu-he-za, TerritorialMinutes, Apr. 1850–Feb. 1854,p. 205, Ramsey Co. DistrictCourt Records; Governor’sMessage, Jan. 26, 1853,Alexander Ramsey Papers,microfilm ed., roll 2A,

Alexander Ramsey,daguerreotype,

about 1850



SUMMER 1996 53

After deliberating an undisclosed length oftime, the jury found Yu-ha-zee guilty. At thispoint, the minutes record the following state-ments:

Upon being asked by the Court if he had any-thing to say why sentence of death should notbe placed upon him, replied, “that the bandof indians to which he belonged would remittheir annuities if he could be released.”

The sentence of the court is that you,Yuhesa, be taken hence to the legal and prop-er place of confinement and there kept untilunder the law, the Governor of this Territoryshall by his warrant order your execution andthat you be taken to the place of executionand hung by your neck till you be dead andmay God Almighty have mercy on your spirit.

A territorial law requiring that executions bedelayed at least a year after conviction, appeals,and a vigorous pardon campaign combined todelay the execution until December 1854.16

n The extant records indicate that Yu-ha-zeereceived all proper procedural guarantees.Indeed, one year after his conviction the editorsof the Daily Minnesotian and the MinnesotaDemocrat complained that the execution hadbeen delayed due to a bill of exceptions filed byhis defense counsel. His two defense attorneys,Jacob J. Noah and L. A. Secombe, had immedi-ately appealed to overturn his conviction, claim-ing that the Ramsey County District Courtlacked proper jurisdiction, but the territorialsupreme court overturned this appeal.(Presumably, they argued that the case shouldhave fallen under the jurisdiction of the SecondJudicial District, which included the countieswest of the Mississippi, the site of the crime.)Nor did Yu-ha-zee suffer from any language bar-rier, as the district court employed interpreters

at trials for Native Americans and French-speak-ing defendants. Significantly, none of the peti-tions and letters sent to Territorial GovernorWillis A. Gorman as part of the pardon cam-paign cited an unfair trial or denial of dueprocess as justifications for clemency.17

The editor of the Minnesota Pioneer believedthe Yu-ha-zee trial represented the triumph ofthe rule of law on the Minnesota frontier:

In this capture of the felon, and his trial, hasbeen most interestingly exemplified the digni-ty and majesty of the law. Here at a pointwhich three years ago was but an Indian wild,two thousand miles from the central powerwhich established the territorial court, a mur-derer has been captured amid the recesses ofhis own savage haunts, has been tried by anenlightened jury, in as calm, dispassionate amanner as ever a trial is conducted in the old-est communities. . . . Our citizens all, we trust,see the propriety, and indeed the moralnecessity, of this peaceful method of vindicat-ing the laws.18

Yu-ha-zee’s sympathizers petitioned Gov-ernor Gorman for his pardon on a variety ofbases. In one letter written in the autumn of1854, several prominent St. Paul citizens,including the successful trader William H.Forbes, argued that the convicted man hadalready been confined in the St. Paul jail fortwo years and was not prepared to meet hisdeath, as the date of execution had never beenset. The petitioners pointed out that Yu-ha-zeehad been intoxicated at the time of the crimeand “consequently knew not what he did.”Finally, they argued that no apparent goodcould come from executing the prisoner andthat his hanging would not “promote themorals of the community.”19

Forty-five St. Paul women also petitioned forYu-ha-zee’s pardon, calling him a “poor and

frame 27, MHS.16 U.S. v. Yu-he-za, 205; Williams, History of . . . St. Paul to 1875, 332. Perhaps in response to the Yu-ha-zee case,

the territorial legislature in 1853 amended the statute so that it required a minimum delay of one month and amaximum of six months before an execution; Collated Statutes of the Territory of Minnesota (St. Paul: Joseph R.Brown, 1853), 24.

17 Jacob J. Noah and L. A. Secombe, Bill of Exceptions, Nov. 23, 1852, Pardon Records, Gorman Papers,Territorial Archives; Territorial Criminal Docket, Apr. 3, 1850–Apr. 2, 1857, p. 83, Ramsey Co. District CourtRecords; Territorial Minutes, Apr. 1850–Feb. 1854, p. 5, Mar. 1854–Apr. 1856, p. 3, Ramsey Co. District CourtRecords; Daily Minnesotian, Nov. 26, 1853, p. 2; Minnesota Democrat, Nov. 23, 1853, p. 2. For example, St. Paul trad-er William H. Forbes was often sworn in as an interpreter.

18 Minnesota Pioneer, Nov. 11, 1852, p. 2. The author of the editorial is not known. James M. Goodhue, whosename was still on the masthead, had died in August, and Joseph R. Brown, who may have written the editorial, didnot take over until February 1853.

19 W. H. Forbes, A. I. Morgan, A. L. Moore, and Edward Heenan to Governor Gorman, undated, Pardon




unfortunate man and he too a Savage with-out friends, money or influence.” If not afull pardon, the women requested a com-mutation of the sentence to life in prisonor a reprieve until the president could beinformed of the case. Signers includedAnna E. Ramsey, the wife of the previousgovernor, and Julia E. Fillmore, the sis-ter-in-law of former President MillardFillmore.20

J. G. Riheldaffer, founder of theSt. Paul Presbyterian Church, request-ed pardon on the basis that Yu-ha-zeehad suffered enough. The clergymanalso questioned whether a “savage”could understand the “importancewe attach to human life; or appreci-ate our method of punishing theoffender.” Riheldaffer argued that along prison sentence would makemore of an impression on theDakota people than an execution.Although in general he favoredcapital punishment, the ministerwondered whether it was appro-priate under these circum-stances.21

Despite these efforts,Gorman refused to grant Yu-ha-zee a pardon, commuta-tion, or reprieve. The governorjustified his refusal, claiming that the killingof Mrs. Keener had been “seemingly deliberate”and “without a Shadow of excuse.” The victimwas a defenseless woman, and the execution wasnecessary to deter other Indians from suchbehavior.22

In contrast to the petitioners’ views, DavidOlmsted, the editor of the Minnesota Democrat,likely expressed the opinion of many. In an edi-torial written a year after Yu-ha-zee was sen-tenced, Olmsted claimed that it would be a “liv-ing disgrace to the name of Justice in theTerritory, if this scoundrel is allowed to go‘unwhipt of justice’ merely through technicalquibbles and legal abstractions.”23

Yu-ha-zee was hanged in St. Paul onDecember 29, 1854. Editor Earle S. Goodrichexpressed his repulsion in the Minnesota Pioneerand refused to cover the event for his paper.After the execution, Goodrich was happy toreport that only a small group had attended. He

was dismayed at the behavior of those who wit-nessed the hanging:

It was not enough for the fiends incarnatewho attended the execution, that the poor fel-low should expiate his crime upon the scaf-fold, but his expiring moments were disturbedby the laughs and jeers of the debauched inthe crowd, and with words of jest and scoffing,uttered in his own language by persons in theshape of men, who were spectators of theawful scene. A gentleman of our acquaintancewho has witnessed many executions, informs

J. H. Riheldaffer’s letter requesting pardon for Yu-ha-zee: “The punishment whichthis poor creature has suffered . . . has been morethan many deaths.”

Records, Gorman Papers.20 To His Excellency Willis A. Gorman, undated, Pardon Records, Gorman Papers.21 J. G. Riheldaffer to Willis A. Gorman, Dec. 27, 1854, Pardon Records, Gorman Papers.22 Gorman to women petitioners, Dec. 28, 1854, Pardon Records, Gorman Papers.



the Indians, thereby causinghis own death. Sheriff

Folsom said Nodin wasacquitted because thejury thought “thekilling was the result ofa drunken brawl.”Disgust for theIndian liquor tradeappears to have beenan important factorin the acquittal.Settlers blamed thewhiskey sellers,rather than their cus-

tomers, for the violentconsequences.26

n A year later, 20 milesupriver from Stillwater at

St. Croix Falls, another Ojibwayman stood accused of murderinga Norwegian immigrant namedMiles Tornell and his hired man.

Tornell’s post was located near St. Croix Falls,and he competed for trade with the Indianswith a German immigrant named FrederickMiller, whose post was on Balsam Lake. In Maya party of Ojibway attacked Tornell’s post,destroying it and killing the two men. A fewweeks later some white men came upon theruins and reported the news back to St. CroixFalls. There, a group of men appointed a coro-ner and traveled to the scene of the murders toinvestigate.27

The investigation led to the arrest of fourOjibway men believed to have participated inthe raid. In separate examinations, each report-edly implicated Paunais as the murderer andMiller as instigator of the crime. A posse andSheriff Maurice M. Samuels, another local trad-er who had illegally sold liquor to the Indians,arrested both men and brought them toSt. Croix Falls for trial.

There being no district court in session atthe time, the settlers convened their own courtand appointed a “judge.” One participant justi-


fied the illegal trial that followed, claiming thatthe community faced an “emergency situation”and that procedural proprieties were observed,including the appointment of attorneys to rep-resent the defendants. What emergency existed,other than the settlers’ desire for vengeance, isnot clear. There is no reason that the accusedcould not have been held until the next districtcourt session, as Nodin had been.

At the illegal trial, Paunais reportedly“frankly confessed” to the murders of both menand said that Miller had hired him to killTornell. Another Ojibway man testified to hav-ing witnessed Paunais’s acts. “After brief re-marks by the lawyers,” the jury convictedPaunais of murder and Miller of instigating thecrime. The deputy sheriff and his deputies keptthe two men under guard until the followingday. In the morning the mob hung Paunais butwas lenient toward Miller, whom they flogged,then placed on a steamboat and ordered neverto return.

News of the murder had spread up anddown the St. Croix Valley. Settlers from MarineMills, Osceola, and Stillwater traveled upriver bysteamboat to witness the proceedings. Amongthem was Morton S. Wilkinson, a prominent

Minnesota Historical Collections, vol. 14 (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1912), 67.26 White, “Crime and Punishment,” 5, 9, 13; Neill, “History of the St. Croix Valley,” 326–27; Robert J. Sheran

and Timothy J. Baland, “The Laws, Courts, and Lawyers in the Frontier Days of Minnesota: An Informal LegalHistory of the Years 1835 to 1865,” William Mitchell Law Review 2 (1976): 12–13; W. H. C. Folsom, Fifty Years in theNorthwest (St. Paul: Pioneer Press, 1888), 48–49; U.S. v. Notin, St. Croix Co. District Court Calendar, 1847,Washington Co. District Court Records, Minnesota State Archives, MHS.

27 Here and three paragraphs below, Helen White, “Scootawabo Brings Death & Disaster,” Dalles Visitor, 1976,p. 3, 15, 23; William M. Blanding, The Early History of St. Croix Falls (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1898),

Joseph R. Brown

Fort Snelling, from an 1853 engraving



11–15; Folsom, Fifty Years in the Northwest, 89.28 Neill, “History of the St. Croix Valley,” 215;

Blanding, Early History of St. Croix Falls, 12; U.S. v.Notin, St. Croix Co. District Court Calendar, 1847.

29 Here and below, “An Indian Execution,” TheKnickerbocker (New York), Jan. 1849, p. 79–80, quoted

Stillwater citizen and the St. Croix County attor-ney who had prosecuted the Nodin case. Hispresence at the lynching, according to historianand contemporary Edward D. Neill, seemed tosanction the illegal action. Wilkinson was conse-quently criticized by his colleagues for his par-ticipation.28

The reaction of Paunais and the otherOjibway gathered at the scene was described byone participant in the lynching:

I stood at his [Paunais’s] side through thewhole affair, and he coolly smoked his pipe asif it was an every-day circumstance that was tohappen. But when he bade his wife farewell, Icould see the tear start in his eye. He lookedround a moment on us all, then took his wifeand brother by the hands, and said in hisnative tongue: “Farewell! Paunais dies like abrave. Wait a little: Pa-ga-ka-ge [White Birch,his wife], by and by you will help me paddlemy canoe again”. . . . He then struck hisbreast, curled his lip, handed his pipe to hiswife, climbed on the barrels which we hadarranged for him; and when the rope wasplaced round his neck the barrels were pulledfrom under him, and he died without a groan,or hardly a struggle—as a “brave” should die.29

Among the witnesses to the hanging werePaunais’s wife, mother, brothers, and severalOjibway chiefs. As the body swung from thetree, Joseph LaPrairie, a Christian mixed-bloodfrom the Pokegama mission, reportedly said:

Brothers: I am of your blood, you will there-fore listen to my counsel. You see one of ourbrethren hanging before you. It is just. It is thewhite man’s way of punishment for taking thelives of their brethren. You will therefore takewarning, and shun the counsel of bad whitemen and bad Indians. Go back to your hunt-ing-grounds. Shun bad traders, and the whiteman will not hurt you. You see that they setour others free; they like Indians who tell thetruth.

n Although local law-enforcement and district-court authorities had demonstrated little inter-est in prosecuting Standing Lodge for the mur-

Willis A. Gorman, Minnesota’s second territorial governor, about 1866

der of his fellow tribesman and generallyeschewed involvement with other crimes amongNative Americans, Nodin, Paunais, and Yu-ha-zee did not experience such negligence. Sur-prisingly, given the evident racism of most set-tlers, it appears that Nodin and Yu-ha-zee wereafforded fair trials by nineteenth-century stan-dards (although certainly not by today’s). Thetwo all-white juries seem to have reached theirverdicts on the basis of the available evidence.

Unfortunately for Yu-ha-zee, a vigorous par-don campaign on his behalf failed to convinceGovernor Gorman that intoxication at the timeof the killing was justification for mitigating hismurder conviction. Clearly, Gorman hoped Yu-ha-zee’s execution would show other NativeAmericans that such crimes would not gounpunished, but this was not the sole basis forhis denial of the pardon. The governor hadother grounds, which were not unreasonable,for refusing leniency: the victim was unarmedand the attack unprovoked.

While it is significant that a Dakota man wasthe only person between 1820 and 1857 legallyconvicted of first-degree murder and executedin the area that became Minnesota, an exami-nation of crime and homicide during this peri-od shows that the story is more complex thanthis statistic suggests. Most of the 17 other



Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society, and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or users or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission: contact us. Individuals may print or download articles for personal use. To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us. Include the author’s name and article title in the body of your message. But first-- If you think you may need permission, here are some guidelines: Students and researchers

• You do not need permission to quote or paraphrase portions of an article, as long as your work falls within the fair use provision of copyright law. Using information from an article to develop an argument is fair use. Quoting brief pieces of text in an unpublished paper or thesis is fair use. Even quoting in a work to be published can be fair use, depending on the amount quoted. Read about fair use here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

• You should, however, always credit the article as a source for your work.

Teachers

• You do not need permission to incorporate parts of an article into a lesson.

• You do need permission to assign an article, either by downloading multiple copies or by sending students to the online pdf. There is a small per-copy use fee for assigned reading. Contact us for more information.

About Illustrations • Minnesota History credits the sources for illustrations at the end

of each article. Minnesota History itself does not hold copyright on images and therefore cannot grant permission to reproduce them.

• For information on using illustrations owned by the Minnesota Historical Society, see MHS Library FAQ.

www.mnhs.org/mnhistory

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Minnesota%20History%20magazine%20-%20Request%20permission%20for%20commercial%20or%20educational%20use


http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html


http://www.mnhs.org/library/about/FAQ.htm#images

http://www.mnhs.org/market/mhspress/minnesotahistory/index.html