Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1879-10-13

Continued from Saturday,
This admirable exposition of the law.
arose IN a case affecting Q treaty with Mex.
leo; and the same principle must govern.
IN our courts, in regard to Z treaty With an
Indian nation. The latter 10 a. much the
supreme Law, - the former. II our govern.
ment solemnly pledges it's faith, by treaty.
with Indian tribes, it must ever be held "a
sacred and binding a. il it were pliehted to
civilized nations. To msintsin treaties.
especially with the weak, 10 the glory Of Z
nation ; because il rebounds to its honor and
prosperity. To break them, 10 to violate all
Law, and all faith and all honor. Carthage
has come down to Us, through the long line
Of the centuries, rs q people characterized
BY "Punic faith"
A contract il unlawful which is contrary
to an express provision Of Law, or contrary
to the policy Of express Law, though not ex-
pressly prohibited or otherwise contrary
to good morals, (See Armstrong ' Toler. Ii.
Wheat, 272; Kennett ' Cham en, Supra)..
and the law will not aid either of two par.
ties who are equally in the wrong.
This case very much resembles that of
Dupasv Wassel u Dillon's c. c. T.. 2l3).
in which it was held that the case was void
BY reason of being in violation of the oct of
congress ressrving the Hot SPRING. lands.
and because the lease wa against 6ublic
policy T; and the lessee was not estopped 10
deny his landlords title.
From all the above considerations. the
following conclusions must be drawn :
l. That the place in which the land in
dispute Lies, being also the place of the
contract and Of its performance.-was In.
dian country to which the Indian title vi.
not relinquished until BY force of the agree.
ment approved February 18th, 1877.
2. That the locus in quo also became an
Indian reservation, by virtue of the afore.
said treaty ratified BY the senate on the 18th
of February, 1869, and proclaimed eiehl
days %afterwards by the president; and tha,
it continued to be 20 reserved, until the ces.
sion of the title under the Aforesaid agree.
ment, approved in 1877.
8. That the relation Of landlord and ten.
ami, a TO this lot Of ground, could not, aud
did not, legally exist on the said 24th o.
August, 1876, or afterward whilst the treat,
was in force, or the land remained ~ In,
dian country,
4. That the said contract of lease, bein,
at it's date unlawful in its objects, and il
violation Of the treaty and Of the statute
and contrary to public policy.-was and il
entirely void.
5. And that, as the plaintiffs present &C
ton altogether rests upon this alleged con
tract, the action must fail.
G.. That consequently, the district cour
erred in refusing to charge the jury, in &c
cordance with the defendants request, tina
the plaintiff could not make any Lawful
lease Of the ground in controversy.
No question touching at all upon the pro
visions of section 23l9 of the revised stat
utes of the u. s., has been presented in thi
case ; and, therefore, nothing In this opin
ion is to be construed a. relating to sucl
mineral lands.
The district court having erred in refus
ing to charge the jury as stated, it follow
that the judgment must be reveraed; ant
the cause 10 remanded to the court below
with disectio1s to dismiss the action and i
is
sc ORDERED
All the ~justices concurring.
[Cases referred to-Lessee Of Pollard
Heirs, IA Pet, 3Ss-8s9, ut would b . bcolt
proposition, that an act of congress must b,
irst passed in order to give II" e treaty.
EFFECT as SUCH" etc,-also i'd, 1926
Worcester vGeorgis, 6 Pet. 58l.5sI; KIN
sas Indians, 5 Wafi, 1877; Bates u Clark,
Otto, 22O Martin Y Wade, 81 Cat., us
The Pioneer, Deady,s. r, 70; Harknees
Undeehill. 1 Black