◆ SpookStack

oa United States vs. Chavez et al. of Indians’’. The act as a whole makes it apparent that the term “Indian country’? was intended to include any unceded lands owned or occupied by an Indian nation or tribe of Indians, and the term continues to have that meaning, save in instances where the context shows that a different meaning is intended? Nothing in any of the statutes now being considered requires that it be given a different meaning in this instance. ; It fellows from what has been said that the people of the Pueblo of Isleta are Indian wards of the United States; that the lands owned and occupied by them under their ancient grant are Indian country in the sense of § 217; that the United States, in virtue of its guardianship, has full power to punish crimes committed within the limits of the pueblo lands by or against the Indians or against their property—even though, where the offense is against an Indian or his property, the offender be not an Indian**—and that the statutes in question, rightly construed, include the offense charged in the indictment. There is nothing in the enabling act which makes against the views here expressed. True, it declares, in keeping with the con- stitutional rule, that the State shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. But the principle of equality is not disturbed by a legitimate exertion by the United States of its constitutional power in respect of its Indian wards and their property.’* As the District Court’s Judgment rested upon a mistaken con- Struction of the statutes the judgment cannot stand. Judgment reversed. A true copy. Test: Clerk, Supreme Court, U. 8. oe eee Clairmont t. United States, 225 U. &. 551, 557, et acg.s “Donnely v. United States, 228 U. 8. 243, 268; United States v. Pelican, 232 U. 8. 442, 447, et aeq.; United States v. Ramsey, 271 U. S, 467, 470, et seq. 18Donnely v. United States, 228 U, S. 243, 271-272; United States v. Pelican, 232 U. 8. 442, 448, 451; United States v. Ramsey, 272 U. 8. 467, 469. 4sUnited States v. Sandoval, 231 UF. 8. 28, 49. va