OCR Text |
Show executing the duties of the Government as hia guardian. The fact that he is a ~ i t i - een does not take him from under the operation of the laws of Congress made for his protection and beneiit, and any one who sella or gives him liquor is liable to punish-ment. The distriot oonrt of the United States far Washington, I Believe, ruled oon-trary to this view in a ease tried by it in the spring of 1890. I have not seen that decision and I do not believe it has been published; but from the correspondence of the Indian agent on the subject I beliere the decision of the court waa in error, because. invtead of followin-n the deoiaion of the oolitioal deoartments of the Govern-merit as to the condition of the Indiana, the court decided for itself bow the psrtiou-lar class of Indians sffeoted should be regarded, and holding- that, as they were citi-eens of the United Stateq the action of Congress and the Executive in maillttilning an agency over them was unnothorlzed, and that the In<lians were not under an Indian agent within the meaning of the statnte. This seems to ipe to be contrary to the rule Isid down by the Supreme Coort. Tho Indians sffeoted by this decision below were those of Puyallup Agenay, Washington. In oonneotion with this subject your attention is 8180 invited to the opinion of Attorney-General Miller of March 12, 1890 (19 Opmions,5ll), which has a most important bearing on the question ss to how the Indian %ll,llottees hould he regarded and as to the duty of the Government to continue far a time its guardian care over them and their lands. Inasmuch as the statute prohibits the sale,exchange,barter, or other disposal of any ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine, or intoxicating liquors of any kind to any Iudian under the charge of a superintendent or agent, aud as the Supreme Court has decided that thc question as to whether the agent shall be placed over the Indians isone for the deter-mination of the political departments of the Government, and ai this Department and the Congress have determined where agencies are maintained over India~ls who have received their al1otment.s that i k is necessary for, the discharge of the trust of the Government to appoint agents over these ~ndiansi,t is my belief thatthe position taken by my predecessor as to the application of the laws to prohibit the sale of whisky to Indians who have received allotments,but who are still under the charge of an agent of the United States, is sound and warranted by tbe laws and the decisions of the Supreme Court and the opinionsof the Attorney-General, the opinions of the district courts of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. It is unfortunate that from the character of the cases in which this question would arise it is impracticable to secure a decision of the ques-tion by the Supreme Court of theunited States. Theseeases are always criminal cases, and there is no power on the part of the United States to appeal from the decision of the courts below releasing the criminals charged with the violation of this law. The Government is therefore helpless to relieve the Indians of the dangers to which the attitude of the lower courts toward these questions exposes them. |