Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1913-10-28

tons Hoe Pollard vs.. Hogan. How
1i2.21b. Not only dooo ihctconmitu-
iion expressly authorizes congress to
regulate commerco with tho In
dian tribes, but long continued ieRls-
iativo and executive usage and an un-
broken current Of judicial decisions
have attributed % tho United States
az a superior and civilized nation the
power and the duty Of exercising a
fostering care and protection over all
dependent Indian communities With
In ~ borders. whether within ia or
iginal territory or territory subse-
uucntly acquired. and whether within
or without the limits of a state. A.
was said BY thlg court in United
states w. Kagama, rs u. 9. SIS. 3sf.
''The power OF tho general govern
ment over these remnants OF a race
once powerful, now weak and dimin-
irhed Ia numbers, II necessary TO their
protection. az we'll as to the safety
OF those among whom they dwell. n
must exist IN that g0vernmeat, be-
cause Il never has existed anywhere
else, because the thcatcr OF It's exer-
else ls within the geographical limits
Of the United States. because q has
never been denied. and because 10
alone can enforce ltB laws on all the
tribes" Ia Tiger W. Western Invest.
ment Co. 221 U 3. csc. ats. prior de-
cislona were carefully reviewed ana
u WAS further said; Taking these de-
cisions together. II may be taken ne
the settled doctrine Of this court that
congress. IN pursuance OF the ong-
established policy OF the government.
has right 90 determine for itself
when the guardianship which has
been maintained over the Indian shall
cease. II Il for that body and not
for the courts 10 determine when
the true interests 81 the Indian ro-
puire his release from such condition
Of tutelaRe"
OF course. Il II not meant By this.
that congress may bring community
or body Of people within the range OF
this power by arbitrarily calling them
an Indian tribe. but only that IN re-
spect OF distinctly Indian communi-
ties the questions whether to what OK
tent. and for what time they shall be |
dealt with as dependent tribes re-
quiring the guardianship and protcc-
ton Of the United States are to be |
determined by congress. and not 10y /
the courts. United states w. Holli- |
day 3 Wall iO7, 4i9: United States /
W.. Rlckcrt, 16S 4. s. 432. 4f3, as: |
Matter Of Iicff. 1877 u. s. ass. 400:
Tiger W. Western Investment Co.
supra.
As before indicated, by a uniform /
course Of action beginning as early /
as 1854 and continued up To the pres
ent time, the legislative and oxecu-
tive branches OF the government have
regarded and treated the. Pueblos OF
New Mexico as dependent communi-
ties entitled 60 It's aid and protection.
like other Indian tribes. and. con-
sidering their Indian lineage and
communal life. primitive customs
and limited civilization, this asser-
ton OF guardianship over them can
not be said to be arbitrary but must ]
be regarded as both authorized and
controlling "A was said Ia United
States Va. Holiday, supra; "In refer
ence 10 all matters OF this kind. II Is
the rule OF this court TO follow the
executive and other political depart
mcnts Of the government, whose more
special duty Il Is TO determine such
affairs. II by them those Indians are
recognized as a tribe, this court must
do the same. II they are tribe OF
Indians then. by the constitution OF
the United States, they are placed,
for certain purposes. within the con
troll OF the laws Of congress This
control extends. as we have alroadv
shown. to the subject OF regulating
the liquor traffic with them This
In |
Is necessarily supreme In It's cxor-
else In that case the COMPRESSION
40 enactment prohibiting the sale OF
liquor 20 Indian wards and forblddlng
les introduction into the Indian coun-
try WAS applied 10 a sale In tho state
OF Michigan TO an Indian who had
ana exercised the right 60 vote under
the laws Of the state. and other appli-
cations OF the statute 10 Indians and
Indian lands In other states are shown
Ia United States vs., f3 Gallons OF
Whiskey. % l.. $. ISIS. 1917: Dick vs..
United states, 2OS u. 8. $40. United
States vs. sutton. 2i5 Y. s 291. HAL
lowell vs.. United States 221 a. s.
317; United States vs.. Wright. 229 u.
s. 226.
Il In said that such legislation cnh-
not be made TO embrace the Pueblos,
because they are citizens. As before
stated, whether they are citizens n
an open question and We need not
determine Il now, because citizenship |
is not In Itself an obstacle TO the eX-
ercise by congress Of It's power Co en-
act laws for the benefit and prAtec-
ton of tribal Indians as dependent
people Cherokee Nation W. Hitch
cock. 1877 U. =. 294. 8OS; United states
VS. Rlokert. ISIS u. s. f32, AS; Unit
ed states W.. celesilne, 2i5 u, s. 27s.
$50; Hallowell w. United states. SUI
pra.
II also Is said that such legislation
can not be made "a include the lands
Of the Pucblos, because the Indians
have fee simple title. Il IN true
that the Indians Of each pueblo DO
have such a title 90 all Che lands con-
nectod herewith. excepting such as
are occupied under executive orders,
hut Il In "a communal title. no indl-
vidual owning any separate tract. In
other words, the lands are public
lands of the Pueblo, and SO tho sit
,...tl... - ff.s 900. ~ "a