◆ SpookStack

2 United States vs. Chavez et al. By §§ 451 and 466, Title 18, LU’. 8. €.,? larceny committed in is made an offense against the United States, the punishment de- scribed varying according to the value of the property stolen, and by § 217, Titlk 25, U. 8. ©." the general laws of the United States relating to the punishment of crimes committed in any place within its exclusive jurisdiction are extended, with excep- tions not material here, to ‘‘the Indian country’’. These are the statutes on which the present indictment is founded. By the enabling act of June 20, 1910,‘ and two subsequent joint resolutions,’ Congress provided for the admission of New Mexico into the Union as «a State ‘‘on an equal footing with the original States’’. Compliance with stated conditions was made a pre- requisite to the admission, and these conditions were complied with. The admission became effective through a proclamation of the President on January 6, 1912.4 One of the conditions related to Indians and Indian lands and to the respective relations thereto of the United States and the State. The provisions embodying thia condition are copied in an appended note. ‘Formerly § 5356 Rev. Stat, and $4 272 and 287 Criminal Code, Act March 4, 1908, «. 321, 35 Stat. 1088. ‘Formerly § 25, Act June 30, 1834, ¢ 161, 4 Stat. 729, and 4 2145, Rev. Stat. *C. 310, 86 Btat. 557. *February 16, 1911, 36 Stat. 1454; Auguat 21, 1911, 37 Stat. 39. *37 Stet, i723. "Section 2 of the enabling act proscribed that the convention called to form a constitution for the proposed Btate should provide by ordinance made @ part of the constitution— ‘First. That... the sale, barter, or giving of intoxicating liquora to Indians and the introduetian of liquors inte Indian sountry, which term shall also include ali lands now owned or occupied by the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, are forever prohibited. ‘“‘Recond, That the people inhabiting said proposed Atate do agree and deciare that they forever disclaim all right and title... to all lands lying within suid boundaries owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes the right or title to which shall have been acquired through or from the [nited Btates or any prior sovereigaty, and that until the title of such Indian or Indian tribes ahati have been extinguished the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition and under the absolute jurisdiction aad control of the Con- greas of the United States; .. . but nothing herein... shail preclude the aid State from taxing, as other lands and other property are taxed, any lands and other property outside of an Indian reservation owned or held by PE ge TN a eee ee bd United States vs, Chavez et al. 3 The lands of the Pueblo of Isleta, like those of other pueblos of New Mexico, are held and cecupied by ihe people of the puebio in communal ownership under a grant which was made during the Spanish sovereignty, was recoynized during the Mexican do- mition and has since been confirmed by the United States. The people of these pueblos, although sedeutary rather than nomadic, and disposed to peace and industry, are Indiana in race, customs and domestic government. Always living in separate com- Tuunities, adhering to primitive modes of life, largely influenced by superstition aud fetiehism, and chiefly governed according to ernde customs inherited from their ancestors, they are essentially a simple, uninformed and dependent people, easily yretimized and ill-prepared to cope with the superior intelligence and cunning of others. By a uniform course of action, beginning as early ag 1854 and continued up to the present time, the legislative and execu- tive branches of the Government have regarded and treated them as dependent Indian communities requiring and entitled to its aid and protection, like other Indian tribe.’ in 1904 the territorial court, finding no congressional enaet- ment expressly declaring these people in a state of tutelage or as- summg direct control of their property, held their lands taxable like the lands of others." But Congress quickly forbade such taxa- tion by providing ;* any Indian, save and except such lands ua have been granted or acquired as ’ aforesaid o as may be granted or confirmed to any Indian or Iedians under any Act of Congress, but . . . all such lands ghall be exempt from taxation by said State 20 long and to such extent as Congress haa prescribed or may hereafter pregeribe. ‘Eighth, That whenever hereafter any of the lands contained within Indian reservations or allotments in eaid Proposed State shall be allotted, sold, reserved, or otherwise disposed of, they shall be subject for a period of twenty-five yeare after auch allotment, sale, reservation, or othar disposal to all the laws of the United States prokibiting the introduetion of licuar into - z of liquor inte the Indian country; and the terma ‘Indian’ and ‘Indian coustry’ shall in- clude the Pueblo Indiana of New Mexied ‘and the lande now owned of oe eupied by them.’' ta See United States v. Sandoval, 231 TU. & 28, and United States «. Can- delaria, 271 U.S. 432, where the matters bearing om the history, character- italics, status und past treatment of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico are extendively stated and reviewed. ‘Territory v. Delinquent Taxpayers, 12 New Mexico 139. vAct March 3, 1905, c, 1479, 33 Btat. 1048, 1069. Hee - =. Tt cnet meno