The weekly Arizona miner., 1871-12-30

provides: "Scc 23. The Constitution and all laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of New Mexico as elsewhere within the United States" By the Act of February ?, IS !. (9th Sts. at L., 5lo) all our Indian inter course laws, including of course the prov's- ions hercinbefore cited, were extended to New Mexico as follows: Sec. :. All the now (then) in force, regulating trade and in tercouFse with the Indian tribes, or such pro- visions of them as may be applicable, shan be and tbe same are hereby extended over the Indian tribes of New Mexico and Utah." Such was the law of New Mexico when Ari- zona was acquired and annexed to it, as al ready shown. To that law, Arizona had been nearly nine years subjected when organized as a seperate Territory.
 To this same law, Federal and New Mexi- can, Arizona would have remained subject by reason of it's former connection with New Mexico, without any special enabling Act But 10 confirm these laws to Arizona beyond all question or cavi!, it's own organic Act thus provides "Sec. 2. That tho Act Organiz- ing the territorial government of New Mex ico and Acts amcndatory thereto, together with all legislative enactments of New Mex icn, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby extended ta and con tinued in force in the ,aii Terrtery Of Ari- zona, until repealed or amepsFed by future legislation" No repeating Legislation affect ing the present case can be shown.
 Thc organic Act of New Mexico, the sup plemental Act of 1851, and our own organic statute. thus apply to Arizona all the laws Of the United States, comprising our Indian in- tercoursc laws, and especially the provisions of tkot. .ks..a ta1 rh. ton recurs, Are they applicable, especially the provisions cited above7
 The Indian intercourse Act of 1902, and especially the 18th section of it, was applied by the Act of 1884 Co the States east of the Mississippi, because there were then there settlements of citizens of the United States, round Indians, and other similar settlements certain to be made, which were not to be fet- tered and retarded by licenses, forfcitures and penalties by our law specially applicable to the Indian country. For precisely the same reason they were applicable here in 1873, and are now applicable to the present and all sim liar cases.
 Laws extend 10 all the future unless limited by their own letter. Presumptively and con structiyeIy, they to sot sacct the past Nothing appears Co show that it ever has been the intention of the Federal Govern
 
 United States round Indians in Arizona, made or to be made, should bc subjected to liccn- ses, foreiturcs and penalties, in their Indian intercourse, to which similar settlements ia the States east of the Mississippi, api tue Territories west of it, are not subjected.
 The conclusion affirmed from this analytic and synthetic examination of our Indian in- tercourse laws, is that for any person resid- ing in a settlement of citizens of the United States, round Indians but not ou an Indian reservation or on lands subject to Indian title, no license is required 70 enable him to trade with these Indians from an Indian Supcrin- tendent, Agent, or any one else in Arizona.
 The first section of the Act of 1884, ai- ready cited and analysed, and tke commence ment of the next section Of the same Act, as follows "Sec. 2. No person shall he permit ted to trade with any Indians Gin the Indian country), without license therefor, from a Superintendent of Indian Affairs, or Indian agent or sub-agent,p were relied on almost exclusively for the United States on the hearing of the case. Tn will be seen that the phrase, in the Isdidn ooaRtrp, as descriptive of the place where the license is to operate, is made peculiarly prominei enclosed ,s 1t s in parenthesis, in Sec. ?, above cited. Through. out the statute and others, also, mere insrec- ton will show, that with the exception of one single transaction, to be noted hereafter. the Indian country is used in connection with licenses, forfeitures and penalties, as the place, and the only place, where they are re- quired or where they can operatr. By the most emphatic notation, by frequent rritera- ton Of the phrase, Indian country, every other portion of our national domain is tbns saved from the operation of licenses, forfeit ures and penalties as absolutely as the physi- cal law of impenetrability excludes any vol nme oi matter from portion of space which Is already occupied by another.
 It may be added, the separation of the In- dlan country From otber portions of tie na- uonai domain IS not the absolute legal or ge- ographical severance of one from the other. The Indian lands are considered part of the national domain. The fee simple title of a State to tract of land is not inconsistent with an Indian title, which is one of posses sion, occupation or use to the same tract. An Indian country may not be made an asylum Tor crime by or against it's Indian occupants. against the laws of the State or Territory within which 1t is located. These laws may reach offenders and others as well with pun. ishments as protection within its precincts.
 In harmony with these conclusions. are the cases decided by the highest judicial tribu. 1 nals, only few of which can be cited here.
 The Indian country is admitted to compose part of the United States. Cherokee Ma | ton vs. The State of Georgia, s Pet. n
 The treaties and laws of the United States | contemplate the Indian Territory as com | pletely separated from that of the States. and provides that all intercourse with them snail be exclusively by the Government of |