The Alaska daily empire., 1915-11-17

--------- --- ltafnc with Indians lr derived from various sources
 First: Tho treaty power
 Second. Power to regulate inter. state commerce.
 Third. Power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes
 Fourth. Ownership, as sovereign, of lands to which the Indian title has not been extlngulshed
 Fifth. The plenary authority aris. Ing out of its guardianship Of the In. dian as an allen but dependent peo. Iple
 The power of Congress to deal with the Indians is in general political In its character and not subject for that reason to be controlled by the judic- Iial department Much as our policy with che Indian has varied on other subjects; to avoid Che dangers to Indians and whites alike from per. hitting the use of liquor by the Inc dians. a fixed and unchanglnr policy has been pursued There never has been the slightest effort to surround the traflic with regulations. but Ats absolute suppression has been Che aim .for more than one hundred years.
 The power of Congress over Indian relations Is plenary and has no rela- ton to state lines. and Congress, who in the exercise of that power pro- tects the Indian from debasing in- nuence In state whether in or off the reservation.
 The provision of the Oklahoma enc abling Act. June 16, 1906, is some what similar to our Organic Act in that it uses the words, "The Manu- facture and Sale Thereof" It was held that they did not operate to repeal by Implication Act of January 30, 1897 29 Stat. SOC. nor that Con- gress alone had the power to sup press Che liquor traffic with the In- dian
 For O long time since it has been tho policy of the government not Go treat with Indians as tribes, since the Act Of March Srd, 1897, Congress has governed the Indians by law and not treaty. Therefore the general laws should apply to the Individual Indians of Alaska as well as elsewhere
 lf Congress of the United States did not lose It's power over the Inc dlans by implication or otherwise by an enabling act provision given to state there certainly can not be any force of reasoning or deduction. that such power and authority was taken away and given to @ territory of such limited and restricted powers as giv. en the Territory of Alaska under its Organic Act
 Surely one would not say SO. if the net itself is undertain In expression and its terms such as is our Organic Act
 And when the Legislature by Chap. 10. page 97 of the Laws of Alaska, 1915, attempted Go amend the Act of Congress. Sec 2O22 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska, they were exceeding their power and authority and even though we should conflne ourselves Co the narrow terms provided by the Organic Act to-wit,
 That no spirituous or intoxi
 eating liquors shall be manufac-
 tured or sold except under such
 regulations and restrictions as
 Congress shall provide"
 AS the first provision in the Enab. Hing Act Is very plain. tho legislative power of the Territory shall extend to an rlghtful subjects of the Terrl- tory not inconsistent with the Con- stltution and Laws of the United States
 But Congress has provided by law Sec. 2O22 of the Criminal Code of the Compiled Laws of Alaska. for the reg ulating of the liquor trafilc with Inc dians and the general law governing tho liquor traffic with Indians. 20 Stat soc, (U. s) is still in effect
 Alter a careful analysis Of an the laws on the subject decisions Con- ! gressional and statuatory it would seem to mo that Congress has intend ed to retain the control wholly with in its power and any attempt by the Legislature to pass or amend any laws with reference to the liquor traffic is an enfringement upon the powers of ! Congress and totally and wholly with out the power of the Territorial Leg islature.
 am therefore of the opinion that tho Legislature exceeded It's powers and that the law relative to the sale and punishment of selling liquor to Indians as set out in Chap. 51 pg, % of the laws of Alaska, 1913, IS IN ! VALID.
 Respectfully submitted.
 VIM. A. HOLzHEI0lER,
 Amicus Curiae.