Arizona citizen., 1871-12-09

ldents on tnexSlla River, but also with travellers 8y this road.
 On tn part ys the United States it was all ged it the present case: First-Tbat ali-o Its territory west of the Mississippi river, with little if any exceptions, Is Indian country. Second That l.o one can lawfully trade therein. with an l ian or Tn- diHn- wuuoas- -y~ some l-i- diau SuperntenJ Ut or 4. And
 rLaf-Ib.a a claimant IEaIn
 bIs' ate i1,c- .-..tt- r------- ma and AlaIeopa lndi wlthau sus license, their ner han -a siez., as a.a desc'15d, is fo-tei le and ea-a. h- oan leune6
 --,., ..- ...-J. -von pne pJ--cy or the United States to secure the Indian country to its aboriginal occupants, until purchased by the Federal Gov ernment, or by others under its direc tion. The cpgnate policy of the United States has also been to secure the early settlement of its public do- main, by citizens of its own, prepara- tory to the formation of new States and Territories. For the purposes of the Indian protection, nearly all the icen- ses. prohi bitions, ferfeitures and pen alties arising from Indian intercourse are by law referred 10 the I...tan country.
 This policy, as in other cases, has been the parent qf our laws on this branch of public affairs The statu- tory expression of this policy has, however, been by TO means clear and consistent by Congress. Even now, What is al hRlan c2ant1y, presents legal question of no obvious or easy solution. This, however, is the es- sential inquiry of the present case. and the careful examination of more than eighty years of Congressional Indian legislation, comprising by ac- l tnal nn"HFer"tio0 rNOra than one hun grai India fae and nearly as many . C0ngres e0ts. ha- led to the conclusion trat luIian country i is one, -Ga na which has Lot 0cn l-.t-u -uIsn and which Is actually Inia 1 diane 1 mes uia, s -.al nct ab-
 -a LHl would handy for any practical purpose, be considered an Indian country, even if the Indian title there could survive the absolute absence of its beneiciar or theirre resentatives. An Jaojaa sso1ratiOn pre- sents conditions quite similar to those of the Indian country, l may for all the purposes of the present case be re- garded as its legal equivalent.
 An Indian title under our law may, it is submitted, be defined as the oc- cul)ancH possession CT eSe of catain hmited portion 2f our Rdi0nd d2naaia, Jy some tri5e or t1FJes cf Lndians, subject to m eycjUsios right Qf pre-emption m the Unltej .S1oteo. A4 [.dian reserva- tion may be defined aS e certain limited portion q o,u natj0aoi domain assigned M the F6Ie1m G0ramment to c tri6e CT tribes ot I'ldians, to Je Jy t5en, doid accoad- ing 10 the terms Qt tte assignment.
 Of our large mass of Congressional Indian legislation, the three Acts of March 8, 1902 Cd Sts at L., 14D; June 30, 1884 9th Sts. at L., 729l and March b, 1864 (l3th Sts. at L., 29), must be referred to as specially operative or instructive in the present case.
 The Act of 1884, regulating trade and intercourse with the Indians, re-, peals, mo3if or limits much of the pro-oxistiAs 4ogislatioA or yhis subject. It presents by no means very clearly, however, g. descriptive definition of the Indian country as follows: " Section l. That all that part of the United States, west of the Mississippi. not within the States of Louisiana and Missouri or the Territory of Arkansas, and also that part of the United States east of the Mississippi river, and not within any State, to which the Iulian title nas not been e>tinguished, for the pur- poses of this Act be taken and deemed | to he the Indian country"
 The essence of this definition exists in the phrase, "To which the Indian title has nc been extinguished." By the structure of this provision, by all its exig encies, and hy the whole of our laws in pari D.atefta, as will be more fully shown hereafter, the qualifica- tion of the phrase just cited must have been intended by the framers of this provision tc extend to the public do- main west as well as east of the Mis- sissippi river The Indian title had at