OCR Text |
Show I - ' 32 REPORT OF THE. COMMISSIONER OE INDIAN AFFAIRS. Diota of Courts of New Mexico.-But the Mexican oitizens of Indian blood, as already stated, were of two classes: (1) Civilized Indians inhabiting towns and principally engaged in pavtoral and agricultural ' pursuits, such ns Pueblo and Mission In~lians,a nd (2) savage, warlike Indians, such as the Apaches and Navajos. It has been held by the courts of Xew Mexico* that the Pueblo Indians are citizens of the United States by virtue of the treaty of Quadalupe Hidalgo. But each case in vhich tlrey were declared Ameri-aan citizens wils an action of debt on statute, brought by the United States to recover the penalty prescribed by section 11 of the Act of Con. gress of June SO, 1834 (4 Stat., 730). for unlawful " settlement on lauds . belonging, secu~ed, or granted by treat'y with the United States to any Indian tribe," in which the political status of the Indians occupy-ing the lands on which the unlawful settlements were alleged to have been made was not neoessarily iuvolved. ' Therefore the expression of opinion on that question, in deoiding whether the status of said lands was snch as would sustain the action, was mere dicta, and without force as an adjudication. The action in the cases arose out of settlements made by Messrs. LII-. cero and Ortiz npon certain Pueblo lands in New Mexico, and suit being , brought under the etatute above cited for recovery of penalty pre-soribed, the question for the oourt to determine was merely whether the ., lands in question were lands belonging, secured, or granted by treat,y with the United States to any Indian tribe" within the meaning of that mt. Whether or not the owners or occupants of those lands were citi-zens of the United States was not,l~eces~ariilnyv _olved in that question, and an expression of opinion thereon would not have the force of a judicial decision. t I n The United States v. Joseph (94 U. S., 614) the Supreme Court passed upon the qnestious involved in the cases of theunited States a. Luoero an11 Tbe United States v. Ortiz; and while the judgment of the' conrt below, that the Pueblo Indians do not constitute Indian tribes within the meaning of seatiou 2118 of the Re~iaedS tatutes (originally Un i t e d States u. Lncero and United Statea u. Octie, 1 Nev ~ e x i c u4;2 3 et asp. t In Cohens u. Virginia (6 Wheat, D9) Chief Justioe Msrshall, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, said (as to the effect to he g i ~ e nu, ponsubseqnent in-vestigation and decision of the particular point, to diata of the court appearing in a former decision in which that paint was not necesst~rilri nvolved), that- The oonllsel far the defendant in error urge, idopposition to thirrrule of constroc-tion, aomedictaofthe oot~rtinthcea seof Marberryu. Madison. It is smaximnot to he disregarded that. general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in oonneotion with the oase in which those expressions are used. If th6y go beyond the oase they may be respected, but ought not to ooutrol the judgment in a aubseqneot suit, where ' the very point is presented for decision. And Mr. Justice Curtis, in delivering the odnion of the Suoreme Coort in the case of Carroll u. Lessee of Carroll eta2. ( lbl~owa rd%, 6), said t<at- This court, and other courts organized onder thecommon law, has never helditself bound by any part of an opinion io any ewe alliah new not needfnl to the aacertsin-ment af the right or title in question betmeen the parcies. |