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

March 3, 1871. From that time on
the Indian tribes and the individual
members thereof have been sub
jected to the direct legislation OF
congress which, for some time, there
after, continued the policy Of locat
ing the tribes on seperate reserya-
tions and perpetuating the com
munal or tribe life.
"Of late years new policy has
found expression in the legislation
OF congress "a policy which looks to
the breaking up of tribal relations,
the establishment of the seperate
Indians in individual homes, free
from national guardianship and
charged with all the rights and
obligations Of a citizen Of the
United States.
"Of the power of the government
to carry out this policy there can be
no doubt 1t is under no constitu.
tional obligation TO perpetually CON
tinue the relationship of guardian
and ward 1t may at any time
abandon its guardianship and leave
the ward to assume aud be subject
TO all the privileges and burdens of
one sui iuris. And it is for congress
to determine when and how that
relationship Of guardianship shall
be abandoned. 1t is not within the
power of the courts to override the
judgment Of congress.
1T is true there may be a pre-
sumption that no radical departure
is intended, and courts may wisely
insist that the purpose of congress
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 various court decisions as
they apply to the case under dis
cussion are then reviewed at some
length, when the decision continues:
''We do not doubt that the con-
struction placed by these several
courts upon this section is correct,
and that John Butler, at the time
the defendant sold him the liquor,
was a citizen of the United States
and of the the State of Kansas, hay.
ing the benefit of and being subject
to the laws both civil and criminal,
OF the state Under these circum-
stances could the conviction of the
petitioner in the federal court of a
of the act of congress of
January 80, 1897. be sustained.
In this republic there is a dual
system OF government, national and
state. Each within its own domain
is supreme, and one of the chief
functions Of this court is to preserve
the balance between them, protecting
each in the powers it possesses and
preventing any trespass thereon by
the other.
The general police power is
reserved to the state, subject, how
ever. to the limitation that in it's
exercise the state may not trespass
upon the rights and powers vested
liz the general government. The
regulation Of the sale OF intoxicating
liquors is one Of the most common
and significant exercises of the
police power. And so far as ii is an
exercise Of the police ii is within the
domain Of states jurisdiction.
Ii is true the national govern
ment exacts licenses as condition
Of the sale of intoxicating liquors,
but that is solely for the purposes Of
revenue and is no attempted exer-
else Of the police power. A license
from the United States does not give
the licensee authority to sell liquor
in state whose laws forbid its sale,
and neither does license from a
state to sell liquor enable licensee
% sell without paying the tax and
obtaining the license required by
the federal statutes.
Nov the act Of 1897 is not a !
statute, but plainly police
regulation. II will not BE- doubted
that an act Of congress- atfemntino