OCR Text |
Show allottee without the consent of the United States, shall be punished by imprls-onment for not less than sixty days, and by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars for the first offense and not less than two hundred dollars for each offense thereafter: Provided, however, That the person convicted shall he com-mitted until fine and costs are paid. But it shall be a sufficient defense to any charge of introducing or attempting to introduce ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine, or intoxicating liquors into the Indlan country that the acts charged were done under authority, in writing, from the War Department or any officer duly authorized thereunto by the War Department. " SEC. 2. That so much of the act of the twenty-third day of July, eightew hundred and ninety-two, as is inconsistent with the provisions of this act is hereby repealed." ' The Heff decision holds that the provisions of this act relating to the sale of liquor "to any Indian to whom allotment of land has been made while the title to the same shall he held in trust by tbe Government" is unconstitutional. An stated in my letter of May 25, the sale referred to in the Heff case occurred oft the reservation in the State, and the jurisdiction of Congress over the reserva-tions was neither involved nor considered. But while maintaining that the au-thority of Congress over Indian allottees on the reservations is not impaired by the Heff decision, under the rule which the Supreme Court has adopted for the mnstruetion of criminal statutes, since the provision in question exceeds the authority of Congress in respect to sales of liquor to Indian allottees off the reservations, it is also void as to sales of liquor to Indian allottees on the reservations. In other words, when an act of Congress embraces subjects not within its constitutional scope, if but one Provision and not separable, It is void a180 as to matter within the legislative authority. It follows, therefore, that the act of January 30, 1897, now stand8 as if the pmvision as to the sale of liquor "to an Indlan to whom allotment of land has been made, while the title to the same shall he held in trust by the Govern-menY has been stricken from it. But there is still available far the protection of Indian allottees, while on the reservations, the provision prohibiting the introduction of liquor into the Indian country, which term, the act declares, "shall include any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall remain in trust by the Government, or while the same shall he held inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States." The Office had these two opinions printed in full and sent copies of them to the several agents and superintendents with a circular letter, which contained the following instructions: In view of the fact that Indian allottees are now subject entirely to the jurisdiction of the States while otP the reservations, your attention is called to the propriety of seeking the aid of the local officers for the protection of Indian allottees when off the reservations. Most all pf the States having a large Indian population have statutes against the sale of liquor to Indians, and yon are directed to bring this matter to the attention of the local officers and render them all the assistance possible in the enforcement of the State laws against the sale of liquor to Indians. You are also directed to be ex-ceedingly vigilant in endeavoring to prevent the introduction of liquor into the Indian country either by whites or Indians. If you and that anyone has taken liquor on the reservation or any Indian allotment, yon will immediately report the fact to the United States attorney and also to this Office, with a synopsis of the evidence to support the charge. Experience shows that the only safety of the Indians lies in keep-ing liquor out of their reach. Their willingness to buy it at any cost |