Arizona citizen., 1872-02-10
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE. l

CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE.
 try, even if their title, which is merely possessory, could survive the absolut' absence of its beneficiaries.
 An Indian reservation may be defn. ed to be certain limited portion O. our national domain, assigned by tn, federal government to tribe or tribe: of Indians, or some part or parts O. the same to be held by them accord ing to the terms of the assignment.
 An Indian reservation and an In- dian country, 1t is submitted, are SC far legal equivalents, that the laws ot the United States regulating trade and intercourse with the Indians, ap- ply alike to both. Licenses to trade in either are grantable by an Indian superintendent, agent, or sub-agent. The act of March l5, 1864 (Sec. l, 13 Stats. at L., 29), makes it an of fense equally penal to sell, exchange, give, barter, or dispose of any spir- ltuous liquors or wines to any Indian under the charge of any Indian Su- perintendent or Indian Agent ap- pointed by the United States. or to introduce the same into the Indian country. This conclusion is supported by the following cases. The United vs. The American Fur Co.,, e Pet. 35S): The United States vs. Holiday, and the United States vs. Haas. 6 Wallace 4O7).
 To enable person to buy or sell the live stock of an Indian, beyond the Indian country or an Indian res ervation, license ss necessary.
 No license can anywhere legalize selling liquor to Indians. United States vs. Holiday, and United States vs. Haas, 6 Wallace 4O7).
 License cannot authorize the pur- chase, by one not an Indian, of the arms, or clothing, or implements of labor, or domestic utensils, of an h. dian or Indians.
 It is not pretended or alleged that the claimants in the present case, or any of them, have sold or offered to sell liquor to the Indians, or that they have infringed any of the other pro- visions of our Indian intercourse laws or that they have indulged in any un- questionable practices with the Ind ians or with others. On the contrary, it is matter of public notoriety here that they have done much to advance agriculture among the Indians and in the neighboring settlements, by i'm portation and distribution of seeds as well as by other similar services.
 The certificate of pro6able cause, in this case, was withheld by the judge of the Court below, because nothing in the case to show any probable cause for the seizure of the in controversy.
 By the Act of Congress concerning Frauds on the revenue, of March 2, 1799, (1st, Stats. at L., CID, 1t is pro- vided, Section S9, that in prosecutions for seizure under that Act, eff 1t shall appear to the Court, before whom such prosecution shall be tried, that there was reasonable cause for such seizure, the slid Court shall cause a proper certificate or entry to be made thereof" &c. If no probable cause appears in any case such as this for the seizure of the property in con- the Judge is not justifable in making such entry or certificate. No such cause appearing in the pres ent case, the certificate was properly omitted
 Nothing appearing in this case to show that the property in controversy therein, was at anytime within all Indian reservation, or in an Indian or that there was any prob able cause for the seizure of the said or that the claimants have n any particular infringed the laws of the United States regulating trade md intercourse with the Indians or my of the said laws-the decree of he District Court of the First Judicial District of Arizona, made in this case, s hereby affirmed, and the certificate )f probable cause is refused.
 JOHN TITUS, c. J.
 I concur in the judgment:
 TWEED,
 Associate Justice