Newspaper Page Text
Vol. II. TUCSOST, PBIA COUTYi A... T.j SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1871, pS"o. 9. CITIZ Professional Cards, Adv'ts, Etc.. hve x. OFFICE ON PLAZA, X3T Opposite the Convent aul'2-tf it. OFFIOE: WEST SIDfM3F PLAZA, TUCSON, A. T. OPPOSITE THE CONVENT. Ts?A slate for calls may be found at tlic Drugstore. ,' 16tf- -A-TTOia-ISr;- - AT LAW, ' ? W ill practice fmlltne otmsfcf the Territory. Itf .1. i:. MttCAri RV. ATTOZEHSTIE-Sr - AT - LAW, District Attorney for Pima county.' TCC.-ON AllIZOXA. Office nest door to Custom-honsc.-ltf ATTOBNET - A.T - LAW, TUCSON, ARIZONA. E li traijes under tin. law of 1871. Office West side of Church Plaza. . 21tf BE. J. A. MAGINITY, DENTIST. Office two doors nort't -t Tnllv, Ochoa & DeLonir"-; . ,;, V Sua. u )(' 'in.: v ntistry Diseases of the Mouth, Jaw and Palate treated. ST" Aloperations warranted. fno4tf PIO'3i:EK -MJjr O IF B7 r CIGAE STORK. rHK I.AT" odicals, Ma N EWSPAPERS, inics and Novels. or? incut of PERI Also, a K' Cigar3, Tobacco, Pipes, Etc., constantly on hand. J. S. MANSFELD, Lccinsky's block, uongress-st, Stf Tucson, Arizona TUCSO 3ST7 ARIZONA and CITY fe5 V ZV DIEGO estu. s. TBI - WEEKLY MATT,' 3f OUR HORSE COACHES . arrive at Tucson everv, Sunday, "Wednesday and Friday Mornings ; Depart at 0 p. m. on Tues days, Thursdays & Saturdays, Until Farther Notice. TIME TO SAN DIEGO.. FIVE DAYS. This will enable the traveling public to reach San Francisco in EIGHT DAYS. Fare to Arizona City 550 " San Diego, (iirgold coin or its equiv nlent,) 1)0 JOHN G. CAPRON, Proprietor. J. E. Bakek, Agent, Tucson. J. F- BENNETT & CO., SOTJTII-BIRISr Ovorland 3 In 11 and Express Company, ARE NOW RUNNING A .Ca two-horse vehicle thrceSSSgg times a week, from Tucson to the Burro Mines, where they connect with Coaches For All Parts of New Mexico, Texas, Chihuahua and Eastern States. "Particular Attention paid to carry ing Express Matter, and comfort of Pass engers. Office at Lasinsky & Co.'s store, Tucson. (nolStf) BABBIT METAL. MACHINISTS, or any person wanting Babbit Metal, can find the best sub stitute in type-metal, of which this office .?u spare about fifty pounds very cneap. Si TEE ARIZONA CITIZEN PUBLISHED EVE11Y SATURDAY. Siibsevlption Kates: One Copy, one year, 5 00 One Copy, six months 3 00 Single numbers 25 AAvert "wlii-i" Ttal'es: Twelve lines in this type, one sq. One square,. ten lines, one . time $: 00 Each subsequent insertion 150 Professional cards, per mouth 3 00 , if Vo -' i '..if ufuorkd Agents for the Citizen. L. P. Fisher j n Francisco SclMK-'.d'- Gr'ci -ri jfc 'o zomiCiiv )i a W, ! 1 ' -viV - -,ic ..ml r"-; , foi niuiicy Jor Tiik Citizen at Prescott. RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. Judge Titus' Decision tltcreon in the United States District Court for the First Ju dicial District of Arizona. The United States against certain merchants. C. W. C. Howell, District Attorney of and for the United States, and J. E. McCafFrv, Attorney for the claimants, William Bichurd & Co. This case arises upon petition and information on behalf of the United States, filed July 29, 1871, for the condemnation of certain miscella neous merchandise therein mentioned, alleged to have been forfeitable and seized on the 20th of June preceding, by Capt Frederick E. Grossman, special Indian Agent, near the reservation of the Pima, and Mari copa Indians, in this District, on a charge of illegal traffic with the said Indians. On the 21st of Oct. last, William Bichard it Co. were on their petition rt) .uatioii " !ti--. mvm.' 01 uid ha 'jiji of 7.!;i.i, wiiiiL 1 a tr 1 prop'ily i 'itrovt iv a f iitr ' upon apprai : l, tin- uas- pl'C'C'-i - LijJ Ll-lil,. xuu jl iy 111 contest, including a barrel of whisky was alleged in the information to have been seized on the Indian lies ervation above described. This allegation, however, has since been found to be erroneous, and been abandoned in the stipulations filed in the present case, which admit the con clusions of fact on which the judg ment of the Court is prayed ; for it is therein stated and agreed by the attorney tor the United btates, as well as by tho attorney, for the claimants : "That the place of business of Wil liam Bichard & Co., wherein the goods against which this action was brought were seized, was and is off the limits of the described Indian Reservation very close to the southern boundary of the said reserve in fact within a few feet of said line ; that the lands outside of the said Pima and Maricopa Reservation, are open to survey and pre-emption, including the place of seizure." The deposition of Capt. Frederick E. Grossman referred to iu the stipula tions filed, was agreed in open Court on the hearing of the case to be dis pensed with as containing nothing but what was and is of judicial notoriety, " except that the articles " allegod in the information and iu the said depo sition, "mentioned 4 as on btorage,' shall be for the purposes of this trial considered as intransitu only." It may be added as of public notoriety here, that the lands thus described in tho record as " outside of the Pima and Maricopa Reservation," and "In cluding the place of seizure," havo been partially surveyed and are now occupied, cultivated and improved, under the authority ot the United States, by American and Mexican residents, either citizens or seekin and awaiting citizenship under our laws, that the land,s recently proposed to be annexed to this reservation, alone contained as appears from au thoritative reports made by Congress, twenty-five of thesp American and Mexican residents, and that the whole valley of the Gila river, including the place of seizure, round it and outside of the reservation, is better settled with permanent residents, excluding Indians, than any other portion of Arizona. Tho store of the claimants where tho merchandise in controversy was seized, is near the principal high- 1 way fipih Tucsjii to Fort Yuma'; and it is also niatfsi .of publi notoriety here tha- the cZjmnauts carry on an active tradu, only with. the. res idents On tiuM&ila River, but also -with travelers T this road. On th,- part Si the Unit d States it .was ' all -fi;ed JiV the jiresenfc case: First Tli At tSliol its territory west ofjtlie AT ippissvpi river, with little' if ahy;iJe';XfepUoi?s. is' Indian country. Second- ThatJ H.Q Jwe can lawfully trade tlierein.frith' an Indian or Tn- 1: 1 1 v u-i..,,,, . a- hail SniHTUtt'-'ntVat or A.. 1 11.: f h. hll mail t . i. -5 . a'-". jrSsffc yrt' 1 1 V ' 1 iTuR'and Jareopa bidi . I ' '.cmxu, th' ir men han me . . - -A. i illialil with :ti n. -n desorj i-l, is tb't'oi .le ai.d 'i'-. ni l'inn(-d 11 , .. on ilic ixjXTcy of the United States! to, secure the. Indian country tp its! aboriginal oecuiants, until purchased by the -Ftderal Gov ernment, or lij-iothei's under its direc tion. ' The d'S'1 policy of the United States as also been to secure the early settlement of its public do main, by citizens of its own, prepara tory to the formation of new States and Territories. Foi ie purposes of the Indian protection, nearly all the licen ses,, prohibitions.jfijjrfeitures and pen alties arising from Indian intercourse are by law veferrddo the J, - fian country. This policy, as n othr cases, has been the parent ' o our laws on this branch of public" Affairs. The statu tory exp ssion -of, this policy has, hoever, bt-en by uo means clear and consistent by Congress. Even now, What i an If Han country, presents a legal question of 110 obvious or easy solution. This, however, is the es sential inquiry of ; the present case, and the careful examination of more than eighty years, of Congressional 1. i:it: I 1 Indian legislation, comprising by ac uw''H'wHttnn tlian one h"ii- tual on 1: iid nearlv juanv Cougrew- tin' . i f"ents, ha- led to' ' the coneiusicu that :u Indian country 1 is one., tht ?ni ? - ti ' ru vhi h htui ' i )i b'; 1. '.f uvuiitstt." .ind which is shows an am;: :u-tn:;: - inl'H.! 11 i- ,,aian- A I indul'nc' n j ri" 'ii'le, f ;i. r". a nc ib-'c.- Thi- . . woiUd 3. y; tV!l.-. li'i any practical purpose, be considered an Indian country, even if the Indian title there could survive tho absolute absence of its buneficiari s or their rep resentatives. Anlndiatt lesenution pre sents conditions quite .similar to those of the Indian count n , a . 1 may for all the purposes of the pi-seat case be re garded as its legal equivalent. An i ndian title under our law may, it is .submitted, be defined as the oc cupancy, jiommon or use of a certain limited jwrtion of our national domain, liy some trilte or trib&s of Indians, subject to an occlusive riylit of pre-emption in the United StaU. A.i L.itian reserva tion mar be defined as a certain limited jmtion of our national domain, assigned ly the Federal Government to a tribe or tribes of Indians, to be by them held accord ing to the terms of the assignment. Of our large mass of Congressional Indian legislation, the three Acts of March 3D. 102 (2d Sts. at L., 141) ; June 30, 134 (4th Sts. at L., 729) ; and March It, 1804 (13th Sts. at L., 29), must be referred to as specially operative or instructive in the present case. The Act of 1834, regulating trade and intercourse with the Indians, re peals, mO'Ufi - or limits much of the prc-cxisthi iugidlatiou 1: his subject. It presents by no means very clearly, however, a descriptive definition of the Indian coim'ryas follows : " Section 1. That all that part of the United States. west of the Mississippi, not within the Sta'tes of Louisiana and Missouri or the Territory of Arkansas, and also that part of the United States east of the Mississippi river, and not within any State, to winch tho unban title .oas not been extinguished, for the pur poses of this Act be taken and deemed to ho the Indian country. The essence of this definition exists in the phrase, " To which the Indian title has nc' 1). en extinguished." By the structure of this provision, by all its exigencies, and by the whole of our laws in pari , jfeia, as will be more fully shown hereafter, the qualifica tion of tho phrase just cited must have been intcmlf d by the framers of this provision to extend to the public do main west as well as cast of the Mis sissippi river. lii'J tnaianutle had at the date of this enactment been ex- tincruished to portions of the national I domain west of that river, not in- ! cluded in Missouri, Louisiana and Ar- J kansas, as well as east of it; and white settlements were advancing on the territory thus freed from Indian claim. It was beyond question to free these settlers, as well as those simi larly situated east 01 that river, from the prohibitions and penalties of the ex isting intercourse laws that this quali fying phrase was inserted in this first section of the Act of 1834. It was not necessary to exclude the States east of the Mississippi from .tun" !y i'n- . x ot within ai.y i.r ' ,;iii whu ': L io to k11:'i" t,-. 1 cas; -jf lit . :v wy.hwai 'I: --i- : 111:1. Il wua uofc iife-sary to i Missouri, Luuinna and A; ka, 1-. tom these dis.-t!.. ities. for ths" iicia Ik en '(.an; by ' , ' nuuieratifi! T- ' ;"Ti-- wLi.-L 10- quires every part to have if posssible its ojierativc effect in the main design of a doubtful statute, impels irresisti bly to the conclusion that this clause of exclusion was inserted in the Act of 1834, to save all those parts of our public domain wherever situated, which were or should be relieved of the Indian title, from all those licen ses, prohibitions, forfeitures and pen alties which were by our Indian inter course laws referred to the Indian country. An examination of our Indian in tercourse laws for more than eighty years, establishes the conclusion to which this simple analysis of the pro vision cited has led. The first Congressional Act requir ing licenses to trade with the Indians, was that of July 22, 1790 (1st Sts. at L., 137). That Act is concluded by the following proviso: "That the President may make such order re specting tribes, surrounded in their settlements by the citizens of the United States, as to secure an inter course without license if lie mar deem - Ti. , -1 -il! nt 1 1 ty t! land any Ai . mteu'i- i, were th-. t, affected by Indian tith '1 :y t 1 t. n iicd in -pt-rati" :i The next Congressional Act on this subject, was that of March 1, 1793 (1st Sts. at L., 339). This Act pro vides: "Sec. 13. And be it further enacted, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent any trade or intercourse with the Indians living on lands surrounded by citizens of the United States, and being within the jurisdiction of any individual State." This Act was also limited to two years. The next Indian intercourse Act was that of May 19, 179(5 (1st Sts. at L., 469), which enacts : "Sec. 19. And be it further enacted, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent any trade or intercourse with Indians living on lands surrounded by settle ments of citizens ot the united State and living within the ordinary juris motion ot am- ot the individual States This Act also expired by its own lim itation m two years. The next Indian intercourse Act of March 30, 1802 (2d Sts. at L., 139) unlimited in duration, thus makes tin: provision a permanent part of ou law : " Sec. 19. And be it further en acted, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent any trade or intercourse with Indians living on lands surrounded by settlements of the citizens of the United States, and bjing within the ordinary jurisdictio: ot any of the individual States. This provision of tho law has never been repealed. It was by tue Indian intercourse' Act of 1834, limited to tribes east of the Mississippi as foi lows : " Sec. 29. Provided, however. that such repeal shall not affect any rights acquired, or punishments, pen alties or forfeitures incurred under any ot the Acts or parts of Acts (thus re pealed), nor impair or affect the inter course Act ot ISOld, so tar as tne same relates to or concerns Indian tribes re siding east of the Mississippi." It is proposed to show that this pro vision has been applied to every Tor- ritory organized since the Act of 1834, above cited, and that the same is part of the law ot Arizona. Policy, as already . stated, is the parent of law. In any doubtful statute, not only the policy which directly gave rise to it, may be in voked to ascertain its true construction, but also any cognate policy or branch of nolicv. And while it is very true that tho nolicv of the Federal Govern- meut has always been to protect the Indians and their lands from all wrongs and invasions as far as prac ticable, tho cognate policy of settling the .public domain with citizens of the United States, native or naturalized, lias been one of the most cherished of all our public affairs. In the Eevolu tion, which resulted in or indepen dence, the sparseness of our popula tion was felt as a national calamity. Our country subsequently started it.1? nir,.i r . 1 . ;, Ci-- iy but lew govern men ;.ii , u h ;t tr-uui s- njT.-iy :nlurse mur."--!.1. HTlet h,vviTr'!P, teiu iii ""-t-'i li i. 11 ; Gr -i b.it un ! , toiritornw . witl- th-- 1 .a'o. tii" Th- . l 01 p .ti . . . 1 .j-cui coionizers on tins Heniisphere. The keen sense of our popular weakness led the Fed eral Government to invite European immigration for territorial settlement with the most liberal inducements. This apprehension has passed away. Notwithstanding, with a great and growing population, and a Continent if not a Hemisphere m contemplation as its ultimate domain, the grasp which the Federal Government has al ways extended to European immigra tion was never warmer than it is to day ; and its policy for the settlement of its public domain was never more liberal than now. The extension of licenses and other prohibitions to any part of that do main finds no encouragement in this policy of the Federal Government either past or present. Licenses are necessary for the collection of revenue in certain police regulations and in some other cases. In all doubtful cases, however, like their offspring monopoly, they have been regarded as 1 'T -1 1 1? 1 dom, not to be encouraged by iiprov ident legislation, or hasty judicial .isiru. r.) hi the e.utious spirit v.hifb n" 01 iggtist, the question of li' nse Ifpr'ii . - is, to bepurstt.il. Vl -i' ' !-'--!'- o i 1 " -it.-l a ""u T -iiia. tin 1 SK'J, it wis - nnfessedly tn' . . 'n 1 the hind, aii-jlica le i -eve; Stat-.- A- air. Lij jitcd, - (S. e - that " Nothing in (that) Act '-! construed to prevent any traue or in tercourse with Indians -living on lauds surrounded by settlements of the citi zens cf the United States, and being within the ordinary jurisdiction of any of the individual States." This was then as much a law of the United States as if it had been applicable and applied to every inch of the national domain. It was limited to the States east of the Mississippi by the Act of 1834, already cited, because the In dians there were surrounded by settle ments of citizens of the United States, and because it was not then thought by Congress either right or expedient to fetter these citizens in their trade with the Indians or any one else. The citizen might then, as he may now there, buy the game, peltry, furs, fabrics of art, or the labor of an In dian, or with few exceptions, any thing else which he had to sell ; and pay him in money, food, clothing or any other property, with few exceptions, which the Indian chose to take, without the written or oral permission of an In dian Superintendent, Agent or any one else. This law was not applied to terri tory west of the Mississippi, except to Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas and other ien-itory to which the Indian title had leen extinguislied, because the Indians there were not surrounded by citizens of the United States. The whites in contact with the Indians in the Indian country, were fur traders, hunters. trappers and others fitter, perhaps, for savage than civilized association. It would seem to be very proper, that if these were allowed to trade with the Indians, that they should be subjected to the restraints of license. All laws, whether fundamental or derivative, with few or no exceptions, pvTirpw nlon"- with the determination, the desire or aversion of the law-niak-in"- power. To the former class belong ail laws for the encouragement ot certain classes of labor or production, rhp m-omotion of special interests, real or personal or social improvement. To the latter class may be assigned all criminal laws, and those of civil prevention or prohibition. The results of any law ought to be and generally are foreseen and contemplated by the Legislature which passes it. In Ar. TV., Sec. in., 01. 2, ot the CONTINUED ON FOUKTII 1'AGE.