The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-02-02
snLL1xe nee. 70 TIE RED NAM
what the 0tatates Say About Trade In
Lsauor On the Iudsna ReservatsoAa.

what the Statutes say About Trade In
Lsauor On the Indsnn Reservations
WARRINGTON. Feb. 1.-Amone tho foibles
popularity attributed to the American Indians
addiction to eun dc cologne ia not usually In
cluded Yet some Of them like II. as Official
accounts show. though less as a perfume than
as beverage. and take 1t in lack OF .
more ardent form OF spirits. preierring that
brand OF so-called cologne water which con-
tains the greatest proportion OF alcohol.
1t has been found necessary. It appears. for
the Indian Bureau to put an embargo on the
sale even OF essences containing alcohol. so
eager are some Of the red men to swallow any.
thing that will help toward tho coveted goal OF
fntoxcation. ana 80 ready are unprincipled
traders to aid them In this purpose. Naturally.
therefore. 1t was great blow to the bureau.
after having brought its regulations UP to so
remarkable a degree OF prohibition. tn find
no less an authority than the United States
Court deciding few months ago that there 10
nothing In the laws. as they stand. to prevent
beer. ale. and other malt liquors from being
introduced into the Indian country and sold to
the aborigines.
Tho question thus raised Is on the inter.
probation Of law which has been long time
on the statute books. Section 2.139 Of the
Revised Statutes reads as follows:
No arden. spirit, shall he introduced under any pre-.
IAN" IN hI h na ID county Every 1Ssp
indian 81 s.s "a any s.Ers Of sn 80. or
rern'endert or sgent, or Introduces alttnpI:
so b, or n4S e S nds S
hpee narsd des and by ns OF not more than
Here 1t will be observed that what the law
prohibits is the introduction Of ardent
spirits F." into tho Indian country: and when a
variation OF language is resorted to the words
"spirtuous liquor or wine" are twice en-
ployed In further definition OF what Is not per-
mitted. Again. in section 2.140. we 1nd this
further declarations:
any superintendent Of Indian AFFAIRS Indian agent,
% 10 o" :ssDs1; % q hs .nY
sSSsry apSs or "in' n,s
sssp so,, or osei may s.u..
OF dsposi. OF such person TO be Searched. ''-'>
After declaring that any such liquor found
therein shall be seized. together with the
conveyance containing 1t and the other mer-
chandise OF the offender. and forfeited half to
the use OF the informer and half to the United
States. the statute further prescribcs that ut
the service OF the United states or OF any In.
dian to take and destroy any ardent spirits or
wine ,o1nd IN the Indian ronnfry eScept snsh
rnrtment."
1t seems toernbly clear that this language
ton whether lager viii in;oxisate. ii rartaken
not prohibit the Introduction Of all liquors that
may intoNicate. 1t was undoubtedly intended
to en- the rat; use Of slim%atng
purpose it expressly limited itself to prohibit:
ing ardent spirits or .pirituous liquors and
Fargo Express Company instructed its agents
that malt LIQUORS could be taken into the
However. the Interior Department went
| right ahead. destroying beer ale. and even ci-
der. no less than ardent spirits and Wine but at
United States Court for the Eastern district Of
TEXAS, decided that malt liSpors We're not pro.
opening Of saloons and importation Of beer en-
sued. especially among the Chickasaws; but
na Jass
clsion. and. backed by the Interior Depart
ment. closed up twenty-GiGht beer sal3ops at
and Berwynn. Having accomplished that
work. Com;miss9ner Morgan thinks it might
serting the words malt liquors among the
prohibitions OF the statutes.
| pains taken to keep Intoxicating liquors from
the reservations, have been Of great benefit to
the red men. and one 81 the best guarantees Of
| pnar" II is equally well understood that many
have occurred among the Indians have been
tion q the law. And it is still dihicult. even
| with Tie GreateSC NlSOr anu vigilance, 10 sup
| press entirely this unlawful traffic. On the
| Puyallup agency. as the Commissioner eX-
| plains in his last report. Agent Eells had
| many OF the persons who furnished LIQUOR
| committed for trial: but they were discharged.
| on the ground that the Puyallups were citizens
| Of the State Of Washington. and hence that the
law against the sale OF liquors did not apply to
| them. On the Nevada reservation three whites
! were convicted aud sentenced for selling
| liquor. but the death by poison Of the Indian
| whose testimony secured their conviction fol-
| lowed shortly after.
Still. important as il is to keep the reserya-
tions from being ruined by drunkenness. this
Commissioner Morgan defends his course on
sole power and authority to appoint traders TO
regulations as no may, deem lust and proper:
the prices at which goods shall be sold to the
Indians" Practically. however, the five civil
lied tribes among whom alone the question in
regard to selling beer under Judge Bryant
decision. has come up. are in the habit Of
| granting their own permits to trade. collect
| ing the fees thereon. Commissioner Morgan
would therefore argue that this privilege is
| theirs by sufferance. and that he still has the
| right to regulate their trade.
| The thought suggests itself that under the
| decisions in regard to tho Puyallups the In
dams who like lager and cannot otherwise
procure it may find a strong inducement to
become American citizens. since liberty in
| that respect would be ono Of the privileges Of
| their new political status.