between an Indian and a white man within the limits of a State, and not on any Indian reservation. Hicks v. Euhartonah, 21 Ark. 106; Taylor v. Drew, 21 Ark. 485.

When the power to punish is derived exclusively from the power to regulate commerce, it must cease as soon as the power to regulate commerce ceases. U. S. v. Cisna, 1 McLean, 254.

Congress has no power to pass a law to punish a crime committed by one white man against another in Indian territory within the limits of a State. U. S. v. Bailey, 1 McLean, 234; U. S. v. Ward, 1 Wool. 17; Painter v. Ives, 4 Neb. 122.

The Federal courts have no jurisdiction of a crime committed by an Indian against a white man within the limits of a State and outside of the reservation. U. S. v. Yellow Sun, 1 Dillon, 271; S. C. I Abb. C. C. 377; 3 A. L. T. 113.

Congress has no authority, either by the power to regulate commerce or the power to make treaties, or by both combined, to punish the commission of a crime on an Indian reservation within the limits of a State. State v. Foreman, 8 Yerg. 256.

The legislation of Congress upon the subject of crimes committed in the Indian country is in its nature exclusive, and a plea of acquittal in an Indian court under the Indian laws for an offense punishable under the laws of the United States is bad. U. S. v. Ragsdale, Hemp. 497.

The Federal Government has the exclusive regulation of intercourse with the Indians, and so long as this power shall be exercised it can not be obstructed by a State. It is one of the powers parted with by the States and vested in the Federal Government. Worcester v. State, 6 Pet. 515.

Notwithstanding the peculiar relation which the Indian nations hold to the Government of the United States, the States have the power of a sovereign over their persons and property, so far as it is necessary to preserve the peace and protect them from imposition and intrusion. The power of a State to make such regulations to preserve the peace of the community is absolute and has never been surrendered. A State law for the protection of the Indians from the intrusion of the white people, and to preserve the peace, is not contrary to the Constitution. New York v. Dibble, 21 How. 366; S. C. 16 N. Y. 203; 18 Barb. 412.

Neither the Constitution of a State nor any act of its legislature, however formal or solemn, whatever rights it may confer upon the Indians or withhold from them, can withdraw them from the influence of an act of Congress which that body has the constitutional right to pass concerning them. U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407.

An Indian tribe within the limits of a State constitutes a distinct community, occupying its own territory in which the laws of the State can have no force, and which the citizens of the State have no right to enter, but with the assent of the tribe, or in conformity with treaties or with acts of Congress. Worcester v. State, 6 Pet. 515; Blair v. Pathkiller, 2 Yerg. 407.

A State law which prohibits a white person from residing within the territory of an Indian tribe, unless he obtains a permit from the governor and takes an oath to support the State Constitution, is void. Worcester v. State, 6 Pet. 515.

The lands of Indian tribes within the boundaries of a State are within its jurisdiction, unless there is an express treaty that such lands shall ħot be included within the limits or jurisdiction of a State. McCracken v. Todd, 1 Kans. 148.

When the political jurisdiction of the tribe has been extinguished, either by law or by abandonment, the State has jurisdiction over the land, although it is owned by Indians as tenants in common. Telford v. Barney, 1 Greene (Iowa), 575; Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437; S. C. Morris, 467; Wright v. Marsh, 2 Greene (Iowa), 94; Barney v. Chittenden, 2 Greene (Iowa), 165.

Except by compact, or the voluntary legislative action of the State, lands within its limits can not be withdrawn from its ordinary action. Lowry v. Weaver, 4 McLean, 82.

No Indian tribe can by treaty stipulate away any part of the sovereignty of a State guaranteed to it by the Federal Government on its admission into the Union. U. S. v. Lariviere, 19 I. R. R. 158.

A State can not impose a tax on the goods of a trader who carries on trade within the limits of an Indian tribe located in the State. Foster v. Commissioners, 7 Minn. 140.

If the tribal organization is preserved, a State can not levy a tax upon the lands of the Indians within its limits, if they are exempt by treaty, whether they are held in severalty or not. Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737; New York Indians, 5 Wall, 761; S. C. 23 N. Y. 420; She-mid-go-me-sia v. State, 36 Ind. 310; State v. Ross, 7 Yerg. 74; Lowry v. Weaver, 4 McLean, 82.

A State has jurisdiction to punish an Indian for an offense against another Indian committed within the limits of the State, and not on an Indian reservation. Hunt v. State, 4 Kans. 60.

So far as the administration of justice to persons not belonging to the Indian nation or tribe is concerned, a reserve forms an integral part of the

county within whose boundaries it is included, and the State may punish a white man for a crime committed against another white person on the reserve. Millar v. State, 2 Kans. 174; U. S. v. Ward, 1 Wool. 17.

A State government has the power to punish its own citizens for offenses committed within its limits whether within an Indian territory or not. An Indian territory within a State can not be considered as a foreign jurisdiction. The State may exercise such jurisdiction over the territory as is not incompatible with the constitutional regulations of the General Government. U. S. v. Cisna, 1 McLean, 254.

A State may pass laws to punish a crime committed by one Indian against another Indian on an Indian reservation within the limits of the State. State v. Tassels, 1 Dudley, 229; State v. Foreman, 8 Yerg. 256; U. S. v. Ward, 1 Wool. 17; State v Ta-cha-na-tah, 64 N. C. 614; Ex parte George Peters, 2 Johns. Cas. 344.

Indians do not submit themselves to all the laws of a State, because they seek its courts for the preservation of rights and redress of wrongs sometimes voluntarily and sometimes by direction of the Secretary of the Interior. The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737.

An Indian is liable to be sued in a State court. Jones v. Eisler, 3 Kans. 134; Murch v. Tomeer, 21 Me. 535; Rubideaux v. Vallie, 12 Kans. 28.

An Indian may maintain an action in a State court to enforce his right to the enjoyment of all property, real or personal. Lobdell v. Hall, 3 Nev. 507.

An Indian tribe can not institute a suit at law, in the name of the tribe, to recover a reservation held by them in common. Strong v. Waterman, 11 Paige, 607.

Indians may file a bill in equity on behalf of themselves and the residue of the nation on the reservation, to restrain a trespass upon their land. Strong v. Waterman, II Paige, 607.

If a contingency shall occur which shall render the Indians who shall reside in a State incapable of self government, either by moral degradation or a reduction of their numbers, it would undoubtedly be in the power of a State government to extend to them the ægis of its laws. Under such circumstances the agency of the Federal Government must of necessity cease. Worcester v. State, 6 Pet. 515.

From the settlement of the country, the Indians have been uniformly treated as a State, a distinct political society separated from others, capable of managing their own affairs and governing themselves. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, of being responsible

in their political character for any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States, by any individual of their community. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. I.

The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States, is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence. In general, nations not owing a common allegiance are foreign to each other. The term foreign nation is with strict propriety, applicable by each to the other. But the relation of the Indians to the United States, is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist nowhere else. The Indian territory is admitted to compose a part of the United States. In all maps, geographical treatises, histories and laws, it is so considered. In all intercourse with foreign nations, in commercial regulations, in any attempt at intercourse between Indians and foreign nations, they are considered as within the jurisdictional limits of the United States. They are not a State of the Union, nor can they with strict accuracy be denominated foreign nations. They may more correctly be denominated dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which the United States asserts a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession, when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States, resembles that of a ward to his guardian. They look to the Government for protection, rely upon its kindness and its power, and appeal to it for relief to their wants. They and their country are considered by foreign nations as being so completely under the sovereignty and dominion of the United States, that any attempt to acquire their lands or to form a political connection with them, would be considered as an invasion of its teritory, and an act of hostility. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. I.

The Indian nations have always been considered as distinct independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights as the undisputed possessors of the soil from time immemorial, with the single exception of that imposed by irresistible power, which excluded them from intercourse with any other European potentate than the first discoverer of the coast of the particular region claimed. The very term "nation" so generally applied to them, means "a people distinct from others." The Constitution admits their rank among those powers who are capable of making treaties. At no time has the sovereignty of the country been recognized as existing in the Indians, but they have been always admitted to possess many of the attributes of sovereignty. All the rights which belong to self-government have been recognized as vested in them. Their right of occupancy has never been questioned, but the fee in the soil has been considered in the government. This may be called the right to the ultimate domain, but the Indians have a present right of possession. As they have the right of self-government they in some sense form a State. In the management of their internal concerns they are dependent on no power.

They punish offenses under their own laws, and in doing so they are responsible to no earthly tribunal. They make war and form treaties of peace. The exercise of these and other powers gives to them a distinct character as a people, and constitutes them in some respects a state. Their engagements with the United States do not divest them of the right of self-government nor destroy their capacity to enter into treaties or compacts. Every state is more or less dependent on those which surround it, but unless this dependence shall extend so far as to merge the political existence of the protected people into that of their protectors, they may still constitute a state. They may exercise the powers not relinquished and bind themselves as a distinct and separate community. Worcester v. State, 6 Pet. 515.

Indians on a reservation within the limits of a State, are not citizens or members of the body politic, but are considered as dependent tribes and alien communities governed by their own usages and chiefs. Goodell v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 693; Jackson v. Wood, 7 Johns. 290; Strong v. Waterman, 11 Paige, 607; Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 211.

The laws and usages of a conquered nation are only abrogated or superseded by positive enactments. The mere acquisition of the territory, whether by peace or war, has no such effect. The usages and customs of an Indian tribe continue to be their law, although the tribe is on a reservation within the limits of a State. Wall v. Williamson, 8 Ala. 48; S. C. II Ala. 826; Goodell v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 693.

Indian tribes may have laws and usages for their own internal government, and adopt other persons as members of their tribes. U. S. v. Ragsdale, Hemp. 497.

The Indian nations residing within the limits of a State, have a right to regulate their own civil policy, and their laws and customs regulating property, contracts and the relations between husband and wife are respected when drawn into controversy in the courts of the State and of the United States. Jones v. Laney, 2 Tex. 342; Dole v. Irish, 2 Barb. 639; Goodell v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 693.

The private property of the Indians on a reservation within the limits. of a State, are not within the jurisdiction of State laws respecting administration, and no letters of administration can be granted on the estate of an Indian. Dole v. Irish, 2 Barb. 639; U. S. v. Shanks, 15 Minn. 369.

If an Indian dies before the laws of the State are extended over the reservation, a State court may grant letters of administration on his estate when they are so extended, as the debts which he may have owed can not be enforced in any other mode. Brashear v. Williams, 10 Ala. 630.

The liability of an innkeeper who keeps an inn on an Indian reservation