Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/66

 UNITED STATES V. OSBORN. 59 �who lived with them and bore their name, and when Joe asked for the alcohol he asked him if he was Miller's boy, and Joe answered, "yes ;" whereupon, he sold him the liquor. Agent Smith has known of the -whereabouts of thia Indian Joe since he left the reservation, and claims the right to return him there whenever he thinks proper; and his mother is still liv- ing there. �Upon these f acts and the authority of U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall, 418, there can be no doubt but that Joe is an Indian under charge of an agent appointed by the United States. In this case the Indian to whom the liquor was disposed lived upon a piece of land ■which he occupied in severalty, and voted at the elections, as he was authorized to do by the laws of the state of Michigan. �There appears to be an impression that Indians situated as Jim and Joe are — that is, who live off the reservation and among, and more or less after, the manner of white people — are citizens and voters of the state, and therefore it is no crime to give them spirituous liquors. But this is a mistake. The Indians are not a portion of the political community called the "People of the United States;" and, although not foreign nations or persons, they have always been regarded and treated as distinct and independent political communities. WorcestevY. The State of Georgia, 5 Pet. 515; The Cherokee Nation \. The State of Georgia, Id. 1, �What effect, if any, the act of March 3, 1871, (16 St. 566; Eev. St. § 2079,) which declares that no Indian tribe within the territory of the United States "shall be acknowl- edged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe or power, with whom the United States may contract by treaty," may bave upon this question, it is not necessary now to consider. Probably none, as in effect it is only a declaration that there- after the United States will not contract with the Indian tribes, but will regulate its relations with them and their affairs by law — by act of congress rather than the treaty- making power ; and whether, and how far, congress can thus limit the constitutional power of the president, "by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties," (arti- ����