The weekly Arizona miner., 1871-12-30

ll. L., 29), must be referred to as specially oper- atiye or instructive in the present case. The Act ot lS3i, regulating trade and ln- tcrcourse with the Indians, repeals, modifcs or limits much of the pre- existing lcgislatio1 on this subject. It presents by DO means very clearly, however, q descriptive deiin'tion i of the Iadiaa c0ustrg as follows Section l. | That all that part of the United States, west of the Mississippi, not within the States ot Louisiana and Missouri or the Territory of Arkansas, and also that part or the United States east of the Mississippi river, and not within any State, to which the Indian title has not been extinguished, for the purposes of this Act be taken and deemed to be the Indian country"
 | The essence of this deiinitipn exists in the phrase, "To which the Indian title has not been extinguished." By the structure of this provision, by all it's exigencies, and by the ! whole of our laws in IDart mdterid, as will bc more fully shown hereafter, the qualification | of the phrase just cited must have been iu- tended by the lralners of this provision to ex- ! tend to the pubic domain west as well as east of the Mississippi river. The Indian title ! had at the date of this enactment been ex- tinguished to portions of the national domain west of that river, not included in Missouri, | Louisiana and Arkansas, as well as cast of it; and white settlements were advancing on the | Territory thus freed from Indian claim. It was beyond question to free these settlers, as well as those similarly situated east of that river, from the prohibitions and penalties of the existing intercourse laws that this quail | flying phrase was inserted in this first section | of the Act of S34.
 l It was not neces ary to exclude the States east of the Mississippi from these disabilities, | for that had been done by the phrase Not within any State" and which applies to'all the States east of that river without distinc. ton. It was not necessary to guard Missouri, Louisiana and Arkansas from these disabili- ties, for that had been done by special cnum- eratiOn. The rule of construction which re- quircs every part to have if possible its oper- ative effect in the main design of doubtful statute, impels rresistibly to the conclusion that this clause of exclusion was inserted in the Act of 1884, to save all those parts of our public domain, wherever situated which were ar should he relieved of the Indian title, from all those licenses, prohibitions, forfeitures and penalties which were by our Indian inter course laws referred to the Indian country.
 An examination of our Indian intercourse laws for more than eighty years, establishes the conclusion to which this simple analysis of the provision cited has led.
 The first Congressional Act requiring licen- ses to trade with the Indians. was that of July 22 lT90 0st Sts. at L., 137). That Act is concluded by the following proyiso: That the President msy make such order respect ing tribes, surrounded in their settlements by the citizens of the United States, as to secure an intercourse withant license if he may deem it proper.n It Is assumed without further question, that the settlements by this Act in- tended, were those on lands not affected by Indian titles. If any others were in eontem- plation, it shows an amplitude of Congres- | sional indulgence not required by the pres ent case. This Act remained in operation by its own limitation only two years.
 The next Congressional Act on this sub iect. was that of March I. l793 (lst Sts. at L., 33o). This Act provides: "Section l3. And be it further enacted, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent any trade or intercourse with the Indians living on lands surrounded by citizens of the United States, and being within the jurisdiction of any individual State. This Act was also limited to two years.
 The next Indian intercourse Act was that of May l9, l7oG (lst sts. at L., 46o), which cnacts: "Sec. l9.--A And be 1t further enacted, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent any trade or intercourse with Indians living on lands surrounded by settlements of citizens of the United States, and living within the ordinary jurisdiction of any of the individual States" This Act also expired by its own limitation in two years.
 The next Indian intercourse Act of March 30, 1902 (2i Sts. at L., 139) unlimited in du- ration, thus makes this provision permanent part of our law "Sec. l9.-And be it further enacted, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent any trade or intercourse with Indians living on lands surrounded by l settlements Of the citizens of the United States, and being within the ordinary iuris- diction of any of the individual States.h | This provision of the law has never been repealed. 1t was by the Indian intercourse Act Of 1854, lImited to the tribes east of the Mississippi as follows: "Sec. 29.-proyided. however, that such repeal shall not affect any rights acquired, or punishments, penalties or forfeitures incurred under any of the Acts or parts of Acts (thus repealed), nor impair or affect the intercourse Act of 1902, SO far as the same relates to or concerns Indian tribes residing east of the Mississippi
 It Is proposed to show that this provision has been applied to every Territory organized since the Act of 1854, above cited, and that the same is part of the law of Arizona. Pei,ey, as already stated, is the parent of law. In any doubtful statute, not only the policy which directly gave rise to il, may be invoked to ascertain it's true construction. but also any cOgnate policy or branch of policy. And while it is very true that the policy of the Federal Government has always been to protect the Indians and their lands from all wrongs and invasions as far as prac- ticable, the cognate policy of settling the public domain with citizens of the United