| OCR Text |
Show REPORT OF TKE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. 33 section 11 of the aot of June 30,1834) and that they .do not hold their lands by a tenure such as would bring them within its meaning was sfirmed, the court declined to rule that they are citizens of tbe United States, declaring that-dbidingby the rule which we think always ought to govern this coort, to decide nothing be~ondw hat is necessary to the judgment we are to render; we leave that question until it shall be made in some case where the rights of citizenship are neo-essarily involved. If therefore it wonld be diota for the Supreme Conrt in The United States a. Joseph to declare that the Pueblo rndiaus are citizens of the United States, it would likewise be diota for the supreme court of New Mexico to make~ueha declaratiou in the United States v. Lnuero, the name questions being involved in both cases. But the expressions on this subject which occur in $he opinions of the courts of New Mexico are entitled to respect as opinions of eminent jurists, audfor this reason it seems necessary here :to briefly consider them and to point out such errors as have presented themselves to my mind asreasons for believing that the courts were mistaken as to the true political status of the Pnebla Indians. Errors in decisions of courts of New Mexico.-By a reference to the First New Mexico Reports (p. 422 et seg.), where will be found the opinion of the court in United States v. Lucero, in whiohis qnoted the opinion in the case of United States v. Ortiz, it will be seen that in reaching the concln8ion that the Pueblo Indlans are citizens of t,he United Seates, the court8 did not refer to the power given Congress in , the ninth article of the treaty of Gnadalupe H'idalgo over the question, , but construed the eighth article alone as conferring all rights of eitizen- ship in the United States on all Hexican citizens remainingin the ceded territories and electing to acquire such citizenship. This I believe to be an error, for by alkrules of construction of law it seems that the eighth : and ninth articles of the treaty ~hould be construed together, and if - this is done but one conclusion, it seems to me, can be reached, and that is that Mexican citizens electing to become citizens of the United States would be entitled to exercise a11 the rights of such citizeus only when Congress shall have given them that ~~rivilege. Then, again, if the eighth article of the treaty is to be construed alone, all the wild, savage Indians in the country to n-hich the treaty relates must be declared citizens of the United States, unless it can he shown that the savage tribes were not made citizens of Mexico by the plan o f Iguala and other acts of the revolutionary government of that country To meet this question the supreme court of New Fexico declares-- When Spanish law hooks and Spanish legislators speak of Indians they mean that civilized raoe of people who live in towns and oultivate the aoil, andoften men-tioned as natzralm sndpasbloa, natives of the towns; and for the other distinct and separate class of Indians whose daily occupation was war, robbery, and theft car-ried on againsz the Poehlo Indians as well as the Spaniards, the term aaveges (sal-wajoa) or harht~rausI ndians (Isdioo aarbaroa) was the expression used. 10288 I A-3 |
