Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/909

 UNITED STATES V. PAYNE. 895 �forts, arsenals, dock and nayy ysiirds, national parks, etc.; and be- causethey may be reserved, they do not necessarily become a part of the Indian country. It is necessary they sbould be a part of such country, in this case, to make the defendant liable to the penalty sued for; because, althougb these lands may be reserved from settlement, and the defendant would have np right to settle on them, and conld be by competent authority ejected from them, yet, toinake bim liable under this statut©, be must bav'e intruded into the Indian country, been put out once, and returned thereto a second time. The defend- ant was the, first and second time arrested upon lands wbicb were originally the lands pf the Creeks. . Tbey were defined by treaty with them, and wben owned by them were clearly and unmistakably Indian country, By treaty of the seventb of August, 1856, the Creeks con- ^eyed these lands to the Seminoles. Tbey were taken possession of and occupied by the Seminoles until they were conveyed to the United States. Tbey were most certainly a part of the Indian country all this time. Tbey are within wbat is well known and recognized by the government of the United States as the exterior boundaries of wbat is called and known as the Indiian country. These boundaries have been establisbed by acts of congress, treaties, and proclamations of the president. The case pf the American Fur Go. v. V. S. 2 Pet. 358, decides "tbat a country wbicb bas been purchased of the Indians, and wbicb is not included within the boundary Une defining the Indian country, ceases to be Indian country." This is undoubtedly true, but it does not decide that a country purchased from the Indians ipso facto peases to be Indian country. �It may be within the exterior boundaries of their country over wbicb the laws of the United States for the government of the Indian country extend, or there may be some law or treaty or executive order under wbicb it still continues to be Indian country, as in the case of the U. S. V. 43 Gallons of Whisky, 93 U. S. 188. �The case of Bates v. Clark, 95 U. S. 204, decides that as soon as Indians part with their title the land ceases to be Indian country without any further act of Congress, uriless by the treaty by which the Indians parted with their title or by some act of congress a different rule was made applicable to the case. I think it clear in this case that by the terms of the Seminole treaty a different rule was made appli- cable, and this view of the case is strengthened when we consider the purpose for which the government purchased it; the fact that it is surrounded on all sides by other Indian reservations ; and the further fact that it is within the exterior boundaries of wbat is now and ��� �