OCR Text |
Show 29 at that time and the very negative aspect of the Allotment period from 1887 until the reversal of that action began in the 1920's and until the period was officially closed by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. It is interesting that at the same time these cases adverse to the best interests of the Pueblo Indians were arising in New Mexico, quite a different opinion in reference to Indian interests was heard in the California courts in the case of Sunol vs. Hepburn; The Constitution referred to, it is said, by conferring upon Indians the character of Mexican citizens, thereby removed all restraints on the alienation of lands by them. But this argument proves too much. Infants, idiots, lunatics, spendthrifts, and married women are also Mexican citizens; yet it can scarcely be claimed that these constitutional provisions were intended to remove all disabilities, under which they are placed by law, and enable them to contract and alienate their property without the intervention of tutor or curator, committee or guardian. So with the Indians. Though elevated to the condition of Mexican citizens, they must still contract and convey property in the mode proscribed for them by law. It is further contended that by virtue of the Plan of Iguala, and the circular of January 11, 1821, which declared that all inhabitants of Mexico were equal in rights, without distinction of Europeans, Africans, or Indians, the disabilities of the latter class to transfer their lands without control were removed. The same objection to this argument arises which has been noticed in respect to that founded on the constitutions referred to. It proves too much. Besides, it is laid down in the Febrero Mejicano (Tom. I, p. 97) in speaking of the Plan of Iguala, that all those laws, which establish different regulations, according to the diversity of races, still remain in force, when they concede some rational and substantial favor, though not, when without reason, they subject any class to a distinction ridiculous and abhorrent, and we have seen, that the object of the disability under consideration was not to create an invidious distinction or impose a useless burden but in part at least, to favor the native inhabitants by shielding them from the impositions of the superior race. |