The weekly Arizona miner., 1871-12-30
Ghe ' giaer.
RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.

Std,es District Court for tke Gtrst Judicial
 District ef Arisoaa.
 The United States against certain mer- chants.
 IC. W. c. Powell, District Attorney Of and for the United States, and J. E. McCaifry. Attorney for the claimants, William Richard & Co.
 This case arises upon petition and infor- nation on behalf Of the United States, filed Jaly 9, 1871, for the condemnation of ccr- tain miscellaneous merchandise, therein men toned, alleged to have been forieitable and seized on the 20th of June preceding, by Capt. Frederick F.. Grossman, special Indian Agent, near the reservation of the Pima and Msricopa Indians, in this District, on a charge of illegal traffic with the said Indians.
 On the 2lst of October last, William Bi- ehard & Co. were on their petition and claim as sole owners, admitted to defend the said property against the decree of condemnation thus prayed for; and having filed their bond with sufficient surcties, in the sum of s. GOO, which was the value of the property in con troversy as found upon appraisement, the case proceeds upon that The property in con test, including barrel of whisky, was alleged in the information to have been seized on the Indian Reservation above described. This allegation, however, has since been found to
 
 stipulations filed in ihe present case, which admit the conclusions of fact on which the judgment of the Court Is prayed; for it Is therein stated and agreed by the attorney for the United States, as we'll as by the attorney for the claimants: "That the place of busi- ness of William Richard Co, wherein the goods against which this action was brought were scixed, was and is off the limits of the described Indian Reservation, very close to Inc southern boundary of the said reserve iB fact within few feet of said line; that tbe lands outside of the said Pima and Mari copa Reservation, are open to survey and pre-emptiOn, including the place of seizure"
 The deposition of Capt. Frederick F.. Gross nam referred to in the stipulations filed, was agreed in open Court on the hearing of the case to be dispensed with as con taining noth- ing but what was and Is of judicial notoriety, except that the articles - alleged in the in formation and in the said deposition, men toned 'as on storage shall be for the pur- poses ot this trial considered as ihtraasits only.n
 It may be added as of public notoriety here, that the lands thus described in the record as @outSide of the Pima and Maricopa Reservation" and "including the place of seizure" have been partially surveyed and are now occupied, cultivated and improved, un- der the authority of the United States, by American and Mexican residents. either citi- zens or seeking and awaiting citizenship un- der our laws, that the lands recently proposed to be annexed to this reservation, alone con tained, as appears from authoritative reports made by Congress, twenty five ot these American and Mexican residents, and that the whole valley of the Gila river, including che place of seizure, round it and outside of the reservation, it better settled with perma- nent residents, excluding Indians, than any other portion of Arizona. The store of the claimants where the merchandise in contro- rersy was seized, IS near the principal high way from Tucson to Fort Yuma and it is also matter of public notoriety here that the claimants carry on an active trade, not only with the residents on the Gila river, but also with travellers by this road.
 On the part of the United States it was alleged in the present case First-That all of it's territory west Of the Mississippi river, with little if any exception, is Indian coan- try. Second-That no one can lawfully trade therein, with an Indian or Indians, without 4 license from some Indian Superintendent or Agent. And third--That the claim,nts, Will ham Richard Co, having traded with the Pima and Maricopa Indians without such license, their merchandise siezed as above de- scribcd, IS forfeitable and ought to be con demned.
 1t has always been the policy Of the United States to secure the Indian country to it's aboriginal occupant, until purchased by the Frderal Government, or by others under its direction The cognate policy of the United States has also been to secure the early set tlement of it's public domain, by citizens ef ns own, preparatory to the formation of new States and Territories. For the purposes of the Indian protection, nearly all the licenses. prohibitions, forfeitures and penalties arising rom Indian intercourse are by law referred 10 the iadtaa country. This policy, as in other cases, has been the parent of our laws on this branch of public affairs The statu- sory expression Of this policy has, however, been by no means clear and consistent by Congress. Even now, Wkat Is aa L,dian ooua- rg, presents legal question of no obvious or easy solution. This, however, IS the essen- tisl inquiry or the present case, and the care ful examination of more than eighty yesrs of Congressional Indian legislation, compris- ing by actual enumeration more than one hundred Indian tribes and nearly as many Congressional enaetments, has jed to the con ciasion that an Indian country is one, the In- aian title to which has not been extinguish- ed, and which IS actually inhabited by Indi- ans mere solitude, or a region not actu- aiiy inhabited by Indians, would hardly. for any practical purpose, be considered an IIdi- an country, even if the Indian title there could survive the absolute absence of it's Deneileiaries or theiv representatives. An iHdtas Tsserratioa presents conditions auite similar to those of the Indian country. and may Tor all the purposes of the present case be regarded as it's legal equivalent.
 An Indian title under our law may. it is