Arizona citizen., 1872-02-10

- trade and intercourse with the Indians are the offspring of both branches of this policy, and any construction of these laws, must be vicious which ex- cludes either branch of this policy from its consideration.
 The act of 1884, Sec. 29, we have seen, limited to the States east of the Mississippi river, the Act of 1902, Sec. 19, which allowed free "trade or inter course with Indians living on lands surrounded by settlements of the citi- zens of the United States" The act of 1902, though thus limited, has never been repealed. After the passage of the Act of 1884, the next Territorial establishment was that of Wisconsin, organized April 20, 1886; and the last has been that of Wyom- ing, organized July 26, 1868. In the organlc Acts of each of the fifteen Territories esta ablished since the Act of
 1884, will be found a provision sub stantially if not literally as follows:
 "That the constitution and laws of the United States, which are not local ly inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Ter ritory, as elsewhere in the United States" This is the provision on the subject of the organic Act of New Mexico, which with its legislation at the date of our organic Act, was by its second section, made applicable to the Territory of Arizona.
 Now the only test provided here, in regard to the Constitution and laws of the United States, is their appE- cability to the Territory of Arizona. The Constitution and laws of the United States, and all parts of them which are applicable to Arizona, have the same force and effect here as else where. Was the 18th Section of the Act of 1902, allowing free trade to citizens of the United States, settled round Indians, limited to the east of the Mississippi by the 29th section of the Act of 1884, applicable to Ari- zona? If so then 1t must govern the present case. Still further, the Act of February 27, 1851, (Sec. ', 9 Stats. at L., 519), is as follows: "All the laws in force, regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, or such provisions of the same as may be applicable, shall be and the same are hereby extended over the Indian tribes in the Territories of New Mexi- co and Utah." By the act of August 4, 1854 (Sec. 1, 10 Stats. at L., 575)> the territory now comprised in Arizona was annexed to New Mexico. The law regulating trade and intercourse with the Indians was therefore the law of Arizona, so far as applicable, for more than eight years prior to its organic Act of February 24, 1863, (12 Stats. at L., 664), and would have so remained after its organization as Q Territory without a special provision on the subject.
 The question then recurs, IS Sec. 19 of the Indian intercourse Act of 1902, allowing free trade with Indians, to citizen settlers round them, i'll force ln this Territory? Mere inspection, 1t is submitted, shows it to be so applicable, by all the exegencies which made 1t universal in 1902, and applied it east of the Mississippi river, after 1884. In this Territory, there are settlements of citizens on lands of their own or so to become unaffected by any Indian title, and round Indians. The store of William Richard & Co.,, where the controverted property was seized, Is one of them. It cannot be for the benefit of either the Indians or the citizens, under such circumstances, to compel the one class to buy of some relieved of all competition by his license, or to compel the others to purchase licenses before they can sell to an Indian or Indians who choose to purchase where they can do so the cheapest or the best.
 The conclusion therefore is that William Richard and Go. required no license to enable them to trade with the Indians outside of any Indian res srvation, on land unaffected by Indian title, and that the property con- reverted in this case, seized as 1t was 'n neither, is not forfeitable by reason # their omission so to do.
 To prevent misconception, it may lot be improper to state some llmlta- ions of few of the foregoing terms nd conclusions.