The Charles Mix new era. (Wagner, Charles Mix County, S.D.) 1???-1911, 1905-04-28

United States does moi give tle lAetlAee ah-
thofity 10 sell liquor ia slate NA8a laws
forbid fts salc, and neititer degs IaeHee
from a state 20 sell liquor enable theatceaaee
10 sell without paying the tHx and optt4ihEna
tIle license required BY Tie federal statutes.
Now the act Of 1857 IL not a revenue Btatute,
but plainly police regulation. = Htli not
be doubted that an act o. congress attempt.
ing as police reguiatl9s4 t0 ppltiah tlie sale
OF liquor by one citizen of . state q agstheT
within The territorial limits ~ that state
would be an invasion OF the statss 3ar.sdlc-
tlon and could not be sustained. ana II would
be immatefiaI what the ttute edent status Of
either buyer or seller was.
There Is In these police inpttcrs n0 such
thing as divided sovereieEty. Jurisdiction
Is vested entirely in etthpi the state " the
nation ana not divided between the two.
II II be true that there elm be no divided
authority over the property ef the indian,
fortiori must it be true as TO his political
status and Fights.
subjeetion TO both state and national law in
the same matter might often be impossible.
The power to punish salg to an Indian Inn
plies an equal power TO punish a sale by an
Indian. If by national law sale toor by an
Indian was punished solely by imprisonment
and by state law solely BY fine, how could
both laws be enforced 10 respect 70 the
same sale?
The question Is not Na.stler a particular
right may he enforced IN either Il court OF
the state or one OF the nation, but whether
two soveFeignties can create independent
duties and compel obedience.
Can it be that because one bas Indian, and
only Indian blood In his VEINS, he Is 70 he for
ever one of special class over whom the
general government ina I'll It's discretion as
same the rights OF guardianship which II has
once abandoned. and this fhether the state
or the individual himself cuasentsS We think
the reach to which this argument goes dem-
onstrates that it is unsouap3.
But It is said that the government has pro-
ytded that the Indians tItie shall nut be
aIitaated or encumheree Far tHeEty Eve
years. aud has also stipulfl that thc grant
of citizenship shall not deFg " the Indian Of
bis interest in tribal on ttaf property. hat
these are mere property iiE6ts aud do hot
AFFECT the civil or polstieal status OF the
allottees,
In United States v. Bleaeft, lss U. 5. ~ we
sustained the right of the government to pro-
teet the lands thus allotted aud patented fran
any encuInhranee OF state taxation. Un-
tioubtedly an alIottee can enforce his right
10 IN interest in the triha er other proncrty
tfer that right is expressly grantsd1 and
equally clear Is 1t that cosg ess may enforce
and protect any condition which it attaches
10 any OF its grants.
This 1t may do by appropriate proceedings
in either national or state court. But the
fact that the property is held subject to
condition against alienation does not affect
tie civil or political status Of the holder Of
the title. Many tract OF land b conveyed
with conditions subsequent A minor may
not aiienate his lands; and the proper trthnn-
al may at the instance Of the rightfal party
enforce all restraints upon alienation.
But II Is unnecessary to pursue this discus
sion fur,iler. We cot the opinion that when
the United States grants iiio 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, IL places
him outside the reach Of police regulations on
the part Of congress; that the emancipation
from federal control thus created cannot be