Indian

Includes descendants of Indians who have an admixture of white or negro blood, provided they retain their distinctive character as members of the tribe from which they trace descent. - The United States adopted the principle originally established by European nations, that the aboriginal tribes were to be regarded as the owners ot the territories they respectively occupied.'

See Discovery, 1.

Indians who maintain their tribal relations are the subjects of independent governments, and as such not in the jurisdiction of the United States, because the Indian nations have always been regarded as distinct political communities between which and our government certain international relations were to be maintained. These relations are established by treaties to the same extent as with foreign powers. They are treated as sovereign communities, possessing and exercising the right of free deliberation and action, but, in consideration of protection, owing a qualified subjection to the United States.* If the tribal organization of Indian bands is recognized by the political department ot the National government as existing; that is to say, if the government makes treaties with and has its agent among them, paying annuities, and dealing otherwise with "head men " in its behalf, the fact that the primitive habits and customs of the tribe have been largely broken into by intercourse with the whites, does not authorize a State government to regard the tribal organization as gone, and the Indians as citizens of the State where they are and subject to its laws.^ When members leave their tribe and become merged into the mass of the people they owe complete ' Nichol V. Henry, 89 Ind. 54, 58-59 (1883); Bedford v. Tupper, 30 Hun, 176 (1883).

See also.35 Ala. 23;.50 Ga. 337; 19 111. 486; 29 La. An. 116; 81 id 33; 44 Mich. 1£3; 40 Mo. 472; 87 N. Y. 257; 16 Ohio St. 543; 76 Pa. 398; f2 id. 116; 11 W. N. C. 567; 24 Vt. 327, 338; 4 Biss. 437,445; Cooley, Torts, p. 387, cases. 2 Wall V. Williams, 11 Ala. 836 (1847). See Relation of Indians to Citizenship, 7 Op. Att.-Gren, 746, 750 (1856); Campan v. Dewey, 9 Mich. 435 (1801). s United States v. Rogers, 4 How. 667 (1846): Johnson V. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 574, 584 (1823); United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 331-82 (1886); 3 Kent, 378; 2 Washb. R. P. 581. « Exp. Reynolds. 18 Alb. Law J. 8 (U. S. D. C, W. D. Ark., 1878), Parker, J. See also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. '16 (1831); Worcester v. Georgia, 6 id.

515, 5&4 (1832); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 4C3 (1856); Cherokee Trust Funds, 117 U. S. 288 (1686); 2 allegiance to the government of the United States and are subject to its courts." A white man who is incorporated with a tribe byadoption does not thereby become an Indian, so as to cease to be amenable to the laws ot the United States or to lose the right to trial in their coui'ts.* Under the Constitution " Indians, not taxed " are not counted in apportioning representatives and direct taxes among the States; and Congress has power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. The tribes are alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States have habitually dealt either through treaties or acts of Congress. The members owe immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and are not part of the people of the United States. They are in a dependent condition, a, state of pupilage, resembling that of a ward to his guardian. Indians and their property, exempt from taxation by treaty or statute of the United States, cannot be taxed by any State. General acts of Congress do not apply to Indians, unless so expressed as to clearly manifest an intention to include them. The alien and dependent condition of the members of the tribes cannot be put off at their own will, witfiout the assent of the United States. They have never been deemed citizens, except under explicit provisions of treaty or statute to that effect; nor were they made citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment. 3 While the government has recognized in the Indian tribes heretofore a state of semi-independence and pupilage, it has the right and authority, instead of controlling them by treaties, to govern them by acts of Congress: they being within the geographical limits of the United States, and necessarily subject to the laws which Congress may enact for their protection and that of the people with whom they came in contact. A State has no power over them as long as they maintain their tribal relations: the Indians then owe no allegiance to the State, and receive from it no protection.* In construing a treaty, if words be used which are susceptible of a more extended meaning than their plain import, as connected with the tenor of the treaty, they should be considered as used in the latter sense. How the words were understood by the unlettered people, rather than their critical meaning, should form ■ the rule of construction.* The relations between the United States and the different tribes being those of a superior toward an inferior who is under its care and control, its acts touching them and its promises to them, In the execution of its own policy and in the furtherance of its own interests, are to be interpreted as justice and reason demand in all cases where power is exerted by the strong over those to whom they owe care and ' Bxp. Reynolds, ante. ■^United States v. Rogers, 4 How. 567(1846); 3 Op. Att.-flen.

693; 4 id. 258; 7 id. 174. 'Elk V. Wil Mns, Iia U. S. 99-100,-102 (T884), cases, Gray, J. « United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S..375, 381-82 (1886), cases, Miller, J. Act 3 March, 1871: R. S. § 2070; 119 protection.

The inequality between the parties is to be made good by the superior justice which looks only to the substance of the right, without regard to technical rules framed under a system of municipal jurisprudence, formulating the rights and obligations of private persons, equally subject to the same laws... A treaty is not to be read as rigidly as a document between private persons governed by a system of- technical law, but in the light of that larger reason which constitutes the spirit <)f the law of nations, i Indian country. That portion of the United States declared such by act of Congress; not, a country owned or inhabited by Indians in whole or in part. ( As, in the act declaring it a crime to introdnce spirituous liquors in such country.^ Applies to all the country to which the Indian title has not been extinguished, whether within a reservation or not, and whenever acquired.* Indian Territory. An act approved February 15, 1888 (26 St. L. 33), provides that any person hereafter convicted in the United States courts having jiunsdiction over the Indian Terrritory or parts thereof, of stealing any horse, mare, gelding, filly, foal, ass or mule, when said theft is committed in the Territory, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not more than fifteen years, or by both, at the discretion of the court. Sec. 2. That any person convicted of any robbery or burglary in the Territory shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding fifteen years, or both, at the discretion of the court; Provided, Tliat the act shall not be construed to apply to any offense committed by one Indian upon the person or property of another Indian, or so as to repeal any former act in relation to robbing the mails or robbing any person of property belonging to the United States; nor shall the act affect or apply to any prosecution now pending, or the prosecution of any offense already committed. Sec.,3. That all acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed: Provided, however. That such acts shall remain in force for the punishment of persons who have heretofore been guilty of the crime ot larceny in the Territory. See Commerce; Expatriation; Extradition, 1; Grain; Partus; Pueblo..