Opinion of the Court.

241 U.S.

What was said in these cases has been repeated and applied in many others.1

Of course, when the Indians are prepared to exercise the privileges and bear the burdens of one sui juris, the tribal relation may be dissolved and the national guardianship brought to an end, but it rests with Congress to determine when and how this shall be done, and whether the emancipation shall at first be complete or only partial. Citizenship is not incompatible with tribal existence or continued guardianship, and so may be conferred without completely emancipating the Indians or placing them beyond the reach of congressional regulations adopted for their protection.2 Thus in United States v. Holliday, a prosecution for selling spirituous liquor to a tribal Indian in Michigan when not on a reservation, the contention that he had become a citizen was dismissed as "immaterial"; in Hallowell v. United States, a prosecution for taking whiskey upon an allotment held by a tribal Indian in Nebraska, the fact that he had been made a citizen was held not to take the case out of the congressional power of regulation; and in United States v. Sandoval, a prosecution for introducing intoxicating liquors into an Indian pueblo in New Mexico, it was held that whether the In

1 United States v. 43 Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U. S. 188; Dick v. United States, 208 U. S. 340; United States v. Sutton, 215 U. S. 291; Hallowell v. United States, 221 U. S. 317; Ex parte Webb, 225 U. S. 663; United States v. Wright, 229 U. S. 226; United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28; United States v. Pelican, 232 U. S. 442; Perrin v. United States, 232 U. S. 478; Johnson v. Gearlds, 234 U. S. 422; Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 531, 545.

2 United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407; Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 308; United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 445; United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278; Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, 311-316; Hallowell v. United States, 221 U. S. 317, 324; United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28, 48; Eells v. Ross, 64 Fed. Rep. 417; Farrell v. United States, 110 Fed. Rep. 942; Mulligan v. United States, 120 Fed. Rep. 98.

dians of the pueblo were citizens need not be considered, because that would not take from Congress the power to prohibit the introduction of such liquors among them.

The ultimate question then is, whether § 6 of the act of 1887-the section as originally enacted-was intended to dissolve the tribal relation and terminate the national guardianship upon the making of the allotments and the issue of the trust patents, without waiting for the expiration of the trust period. According to a familiar rule, 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. Upon examining the whole act, as must be done, it seems certain that the dissolution of the tribal relation was in contemplation; but that this was not to occur when the allotments were completed and the trust patents issued is made very plain. To illustrate: Section 5 expressly authorizes negotiations with the tribe, either before or after the allotments are completed, for the purchase of so much of the surplus lands "as such tribe shall, from time to time, consent to sell", directs that the purchase money be held in the Treasury "for the sole use of the tribe", and requires that the same, with the interest thereon, "shall be at all times subject to appropriation by Congress for the education and civilization of such tribe or the members thereof." This provision for holding and using these proceeds, like that withholding the title to the allotted lands for twentyfive years and rendering them inalienable during that period, makes strongly against the claim that the national guardianship was to be presently terminated. The two together show that the Government was retaining control of the property of these Indians, and the one relating to the use by Congress of their moneys in their "education and civilization" implies the retention of a control reaching far beyond their property.

As pointing to a different intention, reliance is had

upon the provision that when the allotments are completed and the trust patents issued the allottees "shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State" of their residence. But what laws was this provision intended to embrace? Was it all the laws of the State, or only such as could be applied to tribal Indians consistently with the Constitution and the legislation of Congress? The words, although general, must be read in the light of the act as a whole and with due regard to the situation in which they were to be applied. That they were to be taken with some implied limitations, and not literally, is obvious. The act made each allottee incapable during the trust period of making any lease or conveyance of the allotted land, or any contract touching the same, and, of course, there was no intention that this should be affected by the laws of the State. The act also disclosed in an unmistakable way that the education and civilization of the allottees and their children were to be under the direction of Congress, and plainly the laws of the State were not to have any bearing upon the execution of any direction Congress might give in this matter. The Constitution invested Congress with power to regulate traffic in intoxicating liquors with the Indian tribes, meaning with the individuals composing them. That was a continuing power of which Congress could not divest itself. It could be exerted at any time and in various forms during the continuance of the tribal relation, and clearly there was no purpose to lay any obstacle in the way of enforcing the existing congressional regulations upon this subject or of adopting and enforcing new ones if deemed advisable.

The act of 1887 came under consideration in United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, a case involving the power of the State of South Dakota to tax allottees under that act, according to the laws of the State, upon their allotments, the permanent improvements thereon and the

horses, cattle and other personal property issued to them by the United States and used on their allotments, and this court, after reviewing the provisions of the act and saying, p. 437, "These Indians are yet wards of the Nation, in a condition of pupilage or dependency, and have not been discharged from that condition", held that the State was without power to tax the lands and other property, because the same were being held and used in carrying out a policy of the Government in respect of its dependent wards, and that the United States had such an interest in the controversy as entitled it to maintain a bill to restrain the collection of the taxes.

In addition to the fact that both acts-the general one of 1887 and the special one of 1889-disclose that the tribal relation and the wardship of the Indians were not to be disturbed by the allotments and trust patents, we find that both Congress and the administrative officers of the Government have proceeded upon that theory. This is shown in a long series of appropriation and other acts and in the annual reports of the Indian Office.

As, therefore, these allottees remain tribal Indians and under national guardianship, the power of Congress to regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor to them, as is done by the act of 1897, is not debatable.

We recognize that a different construction was placed upon § 6 of the act of 1887 in Matter of Heff, 197 U. S. 488, but after reëxamining the question in the light of other provisions in the act and of many later enactments clearly reflecting what was intended by Congress, we are constrained to hold that the decision in that case is not well grounded, and it is accordingly overruled.

Judgment reversed.

Argument for the United States.

241 U. S.

UNITED STATES v. QUIVER.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

No. 682. Submitted April 28, 1916.-Decided June 12, 1916.

The policy reflected by the legislation of Congress and its administration for many years is that the relations of the Indians among themselves are to be controlled by the customs and laws of the tribe, save when Congress expressly or clearly directs otherwise.

Section 316 of the Penal Code does not embrace the offense of adultery committed by one Indian with another Indian on an Indian reservation.

THE facts, which involve the construction and application of certain provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, and § 316, Penal Code, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren for the United States:

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota has jurisdiction of a prosecution for the offense of adultery committed by Indians upon an Indian reservation (formerly a portion of the "Great Sioux" Reservation) located within the boundaries of the State and district.

Rev. Stat., § 2145, is still in force and not repealed by § 328, Fed. Penal Code, and gives to the Federal courts jurisdiction to try all crimes committed in Indian country except such specific crimes and class of crimes as are expressly excepted in said section and in § 2146.

Adultery is not an offense against the person or property of any person, and is not included within the provision excepting from the operation of Rev. Stat., § 2145, offenses by one Indian against the person or property