dealing with and conducting this prosecution. The bail bond was essentially a part of the proceeding that was transferred and was without force or value in any other connection. So, when the power and duty resting upon the United States were passed to the State there went with them the right to use and enforce the bond as the United States might have done, had the proceeding remained in its control; in other words, the State became by operation of law the beneficiary of the bond, and was entitled to sue on it when its condition was broken.

Judgment affirmed.

DAYTON, TRUSTEE, ETC. v. STANARD, TREASURER OF PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

No. 404. Submitted January 7, 1916.-Decided June 12, 1916.

Under § 64a of the Bankruptcy Act the holders of tax certificates who have paid taxes and assessments on property of the bankrupt at tax sales of such property, which sales have been declared invalid, are entitled to be reimbursed the amount paid, on cancellation of their certificates, out of the general fund of the bankrupt's estate, with legal interest, but not with the larger interest and penalties imposed by statute in tax sale redemptions.

220 Fed. Rep. 441, modified and affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the rights, under § 64a of the Bankruptcy Act, of the holders of tax sale certificates of land of the bankrupt, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Harvey Riddell for petitioner.

Mr. Horace Phelps for respondents.

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a controversy growing out of the sale for taxes and special assessments of divers tracts of real property belonging to a bankrupt estate then in the course of administration in a court of bankruptcy. The property was in custodia legis and was sold without leave of court. Because of this the court held the sales invalid and entered a decree canceling the certificates of purchase and enjoining the County Treasurer from issuing tax deeds thereon. Thus far there is no room to complain. Wiswall v. Sampson, 14 How. 52; Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126; In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164; In re Eppstein, 156 Fed. Rep. 42. The court further directed in its decree that the several tracts be sold by the trustee free from any lien for the taxes and assessments, and that the holders of the certificates of purchase be severally reimbursed out of the proceeds of the respective tracts, but not out of the general assets, for the taxes and special assessments paid thereon, with the interest and penalties which accrued prior to the time the trustee took possession. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals that court modified the decree by requiring that the certificate holders be reimbursed for the amounts paid at such sales and for subsequent taxes, together with interest thereon, "as provided by the laws of Colorado on redemption from tax sales of land," the same to be paid "out of the general fund, regardless of the amount which the property may bring at bankruptcy sale." 220 Fed. Rep. 441.

The trustee urges, first, that the certificate holders should not be reimbursed at all; second, that, if reimbursed, they should not be allowed any interest or penalties other than such as accrued prior to the time when the trustee qualified and took possession, and, third, that they should not be reimbursed out of the general

assets, but only out of the proceeds of the trustee's sale of the tracts for which they severally had certificates.

Considering the plain provision in § 64a of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (30 Stat. 544), that "the court shall order the trustee to pay all taxes legally due and owing by the bankrupt in advance of the payment of dividends to creditors," we entertain no doubt of the propriety of requiring that the certificate holders, who had paid the taxes and assessments at the sales, be reimbursed upon the cancellation of their certificates, or of requiring that the reimbursement be out of the general assets. The taxes and assessments were not merely charges upon the tracts that were sold, but against the general estate as well.

And while we are of opinion that the certificate holders were entitled to interest upon the amounts paid at the ordinary legal rate, applicable in the absence of an express contract, we think they were not entitled to the larger interest required to be paid on redemption from tax sales. They were not in a position to stand upon the terms of the redemption statute, for the sales were invalid, and the only recognition which they could ask was such as resulted from an application of equitable principles to their situation. The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is modified to conform to what is here said respecting the allowance of interest. In other respects it is affirmed. Decree modified and affirmed.

241 U. S.

Statement of the Case.

UNITED STATES v. NICE.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR

THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

No. 681. Argued April 24, 1916.-Decided June 12, 1916.

The General Allotment Act of 1887 discloses that the tribal relation of the Indians, while ultimately to be broken up, was not to be dissolved by the making or taking of allotments; and subsequent legislation shows repeated instances in which the tribal relation of allottee Indians was recognized as continuing during the trust period.

Congress has power to regulate or prohibit traffic in intoxicating liquor with tribal Indians within a State, whether upon or off an Indian reservation.

When Indians are prepared to exercise the privileges and bear the burdens of one sui juris, tribal relations may be dissolved and the national guardianship ended, but the time and manner of ending the guardianship rests with Congress.

Legislation affecting the Indians is to be construed in their interest and a purpose to make a radical departure is not lightly to be inferred. Words in a statute, although general, must be read in the light of the statute as a whole and with due regard to the situation in which they are to be applied.

Under the General Allotment Act of 1887 and the act of March 2, 1889, making allotments of lands in the Rosebud Reservation, tribal relations and government wardship were not disturbed by the allotments or the trust patents; and during the trust period Congress has power to regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor to Allottee Indians, and so held as to the act of January 30, 1897, c. 109, 29 Stat. 506.

In view of many enactments of Congress since the decision of this court in Matter of Heff, 197 U. S. 488, reflecting the intent of Congress in regard to sale of intoxicating liquor to Indians, this court is constrained to and does overrule that decision.

THE facts, which involve the construction and constitutionality of the provisions of the act of January 30,

Argument for the United States.

241 U.S.

1897, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to allottee Indians, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren for the United States:

The Government contends that the Pelican Case, 232 U. S. 214, decided in 1914, is inconsistent with the Heff Case, 197 U. S. 488, and must be deemed to overrule it. In the Pelican Case it was alleged that murder of an Indian had been committed by a white man in Indian country. Unless the crime took place in Indian country it was not punishable by Federal law, since Congress, though having the power to punish murder of an Indian ward in any locality, had only partially exercised its power, and had confined its legislation to murder in the Indian country. Unless the murder was of an Indian ward of the Government, the crime was not punishable by Federal law, since the state laws extended to crimes committed even in Indian country by a white man (or non-Indian) against another white man (or non-Indian), and Congress had no power to punish such crimes. The murdered Indian was an allottee having the same status as the Indian in the Heff Case and in the case at bar. This court held (1) that the allotted land where the murder was committed was Indian country; (2) that the murdered man was an Indian ward under protection of the Government, and that the Federal and not the state law applied to him.

The Government now contends that if an allottee Indian is still capable of protection by Federal law against murder, as a ward, he is capable of protection, as a ward, by Federal law against sale of liquor.

If this court shall hold that the Pelican and Heff Cases cannot be reconciled, the Government submits that it should reconsider and overrule the Heff Case.

It is the contention of the Government in this case that