The Daily state register. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1870-1872, 1872-01-31
THE RIGHTS OF INDIAN TRADERS.

made in Arizona by Judge Titus OF
the District Court respecting the
rights of traders with Indians, with
out a license from an Indian Super
intendent or Agent. An Indian
agent seized a barrel of whisky be-
longing to Bichard II Co., who kept
a store outside of a reservation but
Immediately adjoining it. The
lands had been surveyed and i'm
proved. 1t was alleged on the part
of the prosecution that all the terri
tory west of the Mississippi river is
Indian country" and that no one
can lawfully trade with an Indian
without a license from some Indian
Superintendent or Agent and that
Bichard y Co. having traded with
the Pima and Maricopa Indians with
out such license, their merchandise
was forfeitable, and ought to be con-
demned.
The Court enters into an elaborate
argument relative to the meaning of
the words Indian country" so fire.
quently used in the Congressional
statutes. The Court m to the
conclusion that:
IAN Indian country is one. the
Indian title to which has not been
eXtinguished. and which is actually
inhabited by Indians. \ mere soli-
tude. or a region not inhabited by
Indians, would hardly. for any prac-
teal purpose. be considered an In
dian country. even if the Indian title
there could survive the absolute alb
sence of its beneiciaries or their rep !
resentatives. An Indian reservation
presents conditions quite similar to
those of the Indian country. and
may for all the purposes Of the pres
ent ease be regarded rs its legal
equivalent.
The Court decides finally that no
licenses are required from Indian
agents for the reason that the act of
Congress of 1902. has been extended
by the organic acts to all the Terri
tories. That act provides:
"Sec. 19.-And be it further en-
acted. That nothing in this Act shall
be construed to prevent Z trade or
intercourse with Indians living on
lands surrounded by settlements of
the citizens of the United States. and
being within the ordinary jurisdic-
ton of any OF the individual States.'
The subsequentact of 1884 limited
this provision to the Indian tribes
east of the Mississippi except to Mis-
souri,, Louisiana, Arkansas, aud
"other territory to which the Indian
title has been extinguished." 1t is
held that the act organizing New
Mexico, and subsequently Arizona,
extended the act of 1902 over those
Territories. The organic act Of New
Mexico, 1850, provides:
''Sec. %. 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
within the United States"
The act of 1902 is decided ''to be
applicable" to Arizona, and hence
in full force. The Court therefore
concludes that
Nothing appears to show that it
has ever been the intention of the
Federal Government that settlements
of citizens of the United States round
Indians in Arizona, made or to be
should be subjected to licenses,
and penalties, in their In
dian intercourse, to which similar
in States east of the Mis-
sissippi, and in Territories west of
it, are not subjects.
The conclusion affirmed from this
analytic and synthetic examination
of our Indian intercourse laws, is
that for any person residing in a set
Element of citizens of the United
States, round Indians but not on an
Indian reservation or on lands sub
loot 70 IplIan %tlo -