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


ment OF land. there has been koen interestin
the exact nature OF the decision and rs 70 how
sweeping IL was In character.
The decision Is OF vital interest 70 the peo-
plo OF every county In South Dakota and
other states I'm which Indians have taken
their allotments for the reason that 1t makes
n radical departure from the conditions
which have existed for the past fifty years
and places upon the counties and states the
police jurisdiction over Indians who have
taken their allotments of land.
In reply to telegram the office OF United
States Attorney Elliott In this city has just
received complete copy Of the decision from
the clerk of the United States supreme court.
In view OF the great interest in the exact
nature OF the decision the following extracts
are given for the information OF the thousands
of persons who are vitality interested in the
matter:
The decision was rendered IN case from
Kansas which was taken to the federal su-
preme court on writ of habeas corpus. The
petitioner. Albert Heif. WAS on October 10TH Oh
last year convicted Ia the United states court
for the state Of Kansas under All indictment
charging that he had unlawfally sold liquor
TO am Indian named John Butler who 1t was
ascertained has taken his allotment Of land
..The contention of petitioner" says the
decision. is that the act Of January 30. 1857, y
unconstitutional as applied to the safes OF IL
oror to an Indian who has received an aliot-
naent aud patent OF land under the provisions
Of the act of February 5, 1881, because 1t Is
provided in said act that each and every In
dian to whom allotments have been made
shall be subject to the laws both civil and
criminal of the state IN which they may re-
side and further that John Butler, having as
is admitted, received an allotment OF iahd IN
severalty and his patent therefor under the
provisions OF the act Of congress of February
i. 1897. is no longer ward Of the government,
but d citizen of the United States and of the
state OF Kansas. and subject to the laws. both
civil and criminal. Of said state.
.,rhe relation between the government ana
the Indians Che decision continues, and the
rights and obligations consequent thereon
have been the subject OF frequent conslaera-
tion by this court In a general way IL may
be said that the recognized relation between
the government and tie Indians is that OF "a
superior and an inferior. Whereby the latter
Is placed under the care and control OF the
former.
In the early dealings OF the government
with the Indian tribes the latter wefe recog-
nizea as possessing some Of the attributes OF
nations, with which the former made treaties,
and the policy OF the government was, some
times by treaties and sometimes by the use OF
force, to put stop to the wanderinSs OF these
tripes and locate them on some definite terri
tory or reservation, tE4.s easeslisa.ng Cor
them communal or trfballife
While this policy wasin force and tits loca-
ton of wandering tribes was beingfqecom-
p,ishctl. much Of the legislation of congress
ran In the direction of the stlalIon vi the
Indians, preventing general intercourse be-
twesn them and their white neighbors In
order that they might not be defrauded or
wronged through the superior cunning and
skill OF those neighbors.
The practice OF dealing with the Indian
tribes as separate nations was changed by
proviso inserted In the Innian appropriation
act of March B. 1871. From that time on the
Indian tribes and the individual members
thereof have been subjected To the direct
legislation Of congress which. for some tine
thereafter, continued the policy Of locating
the tribes on separate reservations and per-
petuating the communal or tribal life.
OF late years a new policy has found ex-
preston in the legislation of congress-a
policy which looks to the breaking up OF
tribal relations, the establishing of the sepa-
rate Indians In individual homes. free from
national guardianship and charged with all
the rights and obligations OF citizens OF the
United States.
or the power of the government to carry
out this policy there can be nc doubt. IL IS
under no constitutional obligation to Perpet-
ualiy continue the relationship OF guardian
and ward. 1t may at any time abandon It's
guardianship and leave the ward to assume
and be subject TO all the privileges and bur
dens OF one sui jurs. And it Is for congress
TO determine when and how that relationship
OF guardianship shall be abandoned II is not
within the power Of the courts to overrule
the Judgment of congress
1t Is true there may be presumption that
no radical departure Is intended, and courts
may wisely insist that the purpose Of con-
gress be made clear by its legislation, but
when that purpose is made clear the question
Is at an end.
Legislation In regard to the Indians and
various court decisions as they apply 70 the
case under discussion are then reviewed at
some length, when the decision continues:
1--WE DO not doubt that the construction
placed by these several courts upon this sec-
tion is correct, and that John Butler, AZ the
time the defendant sold him the liquor was a
citizen OF the United States and OF the state
OF Kansas, having the benefit of and being
subject to the laws, both civil and criminal.
OF that state. Under these circumstances
could the conviction OF the petitioner in the
federal court OF violation Of the act OF con-
gress OF January 30. 1857, he sustained
In this republic there Is dual system OF
government, national and state. Each within
its own domain is supreme, and one Of the
chief functions OF this court is 70 preserve the
balance between them. protecting each In the
uowers Il possesses and preventing. any tres-
mass thereon by the other.
The general police power Is reserved 20 the
state. subject however, 20 the limitation that
in its exercise the state may not trespass upon
the rights and powers vested In the general
government The regulation OF the sale OF
Intoxicating liquors is one Of the most COM
mon and significant exercises OF the police
power And so far as IL Is an exercise OF the
polIce power it is within the domain OF
states jurisdiction.
II Is true the national government exacts
licenses as = condition " the sale oc intoxi-
eating liquors, but that i solely for the Par-
masses OF revenue and is no attempted exercise