◆ SpookStack

ww 4 United States va. Chavez et al. ‘That the lands now held by the various villages or pueblos of Pueblo Indians, or by individual members thereof, within Pueblo reservations or lands, in the Territory of New Menico, and all per- sonal property furnished said Indians by the United States, or used in cultivating said lands, and any cattle and sheep now possessed or that may hereafter be acquired by said Indians shall be free and exempt from taxation of any sort whatsoever, including taxes heretofore levied, if any, until Congress shall otherwise provide,’’ In 1907 the territorial court, for a like reason, held that the Pueblo Indians were not wards of the Government in the sense of the legislation forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquor to Indians and its introduction inte the Indian country." But that decision was soon followed by the declaration, in the enabling act of 1910, that ‘‘the terms ‘Indian’ and ‘Indian country’ shall in- clude the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and the lands now owned or oceupied by them’*. And in 1924 Congreas, in taking measures to protect these Indians in their land titles, expressly asserted for the United States the status and powers belonging to it ‘‘as guardian of said Pueblo Indians.’ In United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. §. 28, this Court, after full examination of the subject, held that the status of the Indians of the several pueblos in New Mexico is that of dependent Indian tribes under the guardianship of the United States and that by reason of this status they and their lands are subject to the legis- lation of Congress enacted for ihe protection of tribal Indians and their property. We there said (pp. 45, 46) - “Not only does the Conatitution expressly authorize Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, but long continued legislative and exeentive usage and an unbroken current of judi. cial decisions have attributed to the United States as a superior and civilized nation the power and the duty of exercising a foater- ing care and protection over ail dependent Indian communities within ita borders, whether within its original territory or terri- tory subsequently acquired, and whether within or without the **Of course, it is not meant by this that Congress may bring a community or body of people within the range of this power by arbitrarily calling them an Indian tribe, but only that in respect of distinctly Indian communities the questions whether, ta what extent, and for what time they shall be recognized and dealt with as dependent tribes requiring the guardianship and protection of 10United States v. Mares, 14 Now Mexico 1, ‘MaAet June 7, 1o24, ¢. 331, 48 Stat. 636. Uaited States vs. Chavez ef al. 5 the United States are to be determined by Congress and not by the vourts.’” . We then pointed out that neither their citizenship, if they are citizens, nor their communal ownership of the full title in fee simple ia an obstacle to the exercise of such guardianship over them and their property. We also there disapproved and declined to follow the decision in the early case of United States v. Joseph, 94 U. 3. 614, relating to these Indians, because it was based upon reported data which in the mean time had been found to be at variance with recognized sources of information and with the long continued action of the legislative and executive departments. In Uatted States v. Condelaria, 271 U. & ABZ, we were called upon to determine whether the people of a pueblo in New Mexico were a ‘‘tribe of Indians'’ within the meaning of § 2116 of the Revised Statues, deciaring that no purchase of landa ‘“‘from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians’ shall be of any validity unless made with specified safeguards; and the conclusion to which we came, and the reasons for it, are shown in the following excerpt from the opinion (pp. 441, 442): ‘This provision was originally adopted in 1834, c. 161, sec. 12, 4 Stat. 730, and, with others ‘regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes,’ was extended over ‘the Indian tribes’ of New Mexico in 1851, ¢ 14, see. 7, 9 Stat. 587. ‘*While there is no express reference ‘in the provision to Pueblo Indians, we think it must be taken as including them. They are Plainly within ita spirit and, in our opinion, fairly within its words, ‘any tribe of Indians.’ Although sedentary, industrious and disposed to peace, they are Indians in race, customs and do- mestic government, always have lived in isolated communities, and are s simple, uninformed people, ill-prepared to cope with the in- telligence and greed of other races. It therefore is difficult to be- lieve that Congress in 1851 was not intending to protect them, but only the nomadic and savage Indians then living in New Merico. A more reasonable view is that the term ‘Indian tribe’ was used in the acta of 1634 and 1951 irt the sense of ‘a body of Indians of the saine or a similar race, united in a community under one leader- ship or government, and inhabiting a particular though sometimes ill-defined territory.’ Montoya v. United States, 180 U. 8. 261, 266. In that sense the term easily includes Pueblo Indiana’ Section 217 now being considered, like the section considered in that case, was originally 4 part of the act of 1834. One speaks of ‘‘Indian country’’ and the other of an ‘‘Indian nation or tribe