Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1905-04-27

erty Of the Indian, fortiori must
it be true as to his political status
and rights.
"Subjection to both state and
national law in the same matter
might often be impossible. The
power to punish sale to an Indian
implies an equal power to punish a
sale by an Indian. If by national
law a sale to or by a Indian was
punished solely by Imprisonment
and by state law solely by fine how
could both laws be enforced in
respect to the same sale?
The question is not whether a
particular right may be enforced in
either court of the state or one of
the nation, but whether two sover-
eighties can create independent
duties and compel obedience.
Can it be that because one has
Indian, and only Indian blood in his
veins, he is to be forever one Of a
special class over whom the general
government may in its discretion
assume the rights of guardianship
which it has once abandoned, and
Shis whether the state or the individ-
ual himself consents? We think the
reach to which this argument goes
demonstrates that il is unsound.
But it is said that the govern
ment has provided that the Indians
title shall not be alienated or encum-
bered for twenty FIVE years, and has
also stipulated that the grant of
citizenship shall not deprive the
Indian of his interest in tribal or
ether property, but these are mere
property rights and not affect the
civil or political status of the
allotees.
I'm United States v. Rickert, 1873
U. S. 434, We sustained the right of
the government to protect the lands
thus allotted and patented from any
encumbrance of state taxation.
Undoubtedly an allottee can enforce
his right 10 an interest iii the tribal
or other property flor that right is
expressly granted) and equally clear
is it that congress may enforce and
protect any of the conditions which
it attaches to its grants.
This it may do by appropriate
proceedings in either national or a
state court. But the fact that the
property is held subject to condi-
ton against alienation does not
affect the civil or political status of
the holder of the title. Many a
tract OF land is conveyed with con
ditions subsequent. A minor may
not ALLEVIATE his lands; and the
proper tribunal may at the instance
of the rightful party enforce all
restraints upon alienation.
But it is unnecessary to pursue
this discussion further. We are of
the opinion that when the United
States grants the privileges of citi-
zenship to an Indian, gives to him
the benefit Of and requires him to be
subject to the laws both civil and
criminal, of the state, it places him
outside the reach of police regula-
tions on the part of congress; that
the emancipation from federal con-
troll thus created cannot be set
aside at the instance of the govern
ment without the consent of the
individual Indian and the state, and
that this emancipation from federal
control is not affected by the fact
that the lands it has granted to the
Indians are granted subject to a
condition against alienation and
encumbrance, or the further fact
that it guarantees to him an interest
in tribal or other property"
1t was understood that the deci-
sion was concurred in by the
judges OF the supreme court, but it
developes that Judge Harlan dis
sented
Ii would be impossible to exag-
gerate the extent OF the demoraliza-