The United States v. Santistevan

• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Citation: 1 N.M. 583
• Parties: THE UNITED STATESv.JUAN SANTISTEVAN.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

1 N.M. 583

THE UNITED STATES

v.JUAN SANTISTEVAN.

Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.

Jan. 1874.

The penal provision of a statute must be interpreted strictly according to its context.

*1 ERROR to the district court for the first judicial district.The plaintiffs brought their suit in the court below, to recover of the defendant the penalty in the sum of one thousand dollars, prescribed in section 11 of the act of congress, approved June 30, 1834, entitled “An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers,” alleging in their petition that defendant theretofore “did make a settlement on and now occupies and is settled on lands of the pueblo tribe of Indians of the pueblo of Taos, situated in the county of Taos, in said district and territory,” etc. (setting out the boundaries of said pueblo lands); “on ten acres of said lands, by then and there building houses and making fields thereon, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, said lands then and there, and at the time of bringing this suit, belonging to the said pueblo tribe of Indians of the pueblo of Taos, aforesaid, and secured to the said pueblo tribe of Indians, of the pueblo of Taos, aforesaid, by patent from the United States.”

To the plaintiff's petition the defendant demurred, specially and generally assigning for cause of special demurrer: 1.The said declaration shows that in case said lands belong to an Indian tribe, they belong to pueblo Indians, who are citizens of the United States, and not such Indian tribes as are contemplated by the statute of the United States.2.That said declaration shows that said lands were secured to the said Pueblo Indians by patent from the United States, containing the same conditions, powers and authorities to the said patentees to transmit and convey their said lands as is given to any other citizens of the United States, and does not show that said lands have never been sold, transferred or conveyed by said pueblo Indians.The court below sustained this demurrer, and the plaintiffs in error seek in this court reversal of that judgment.

T. B. Catron, for the plaintiffs in error.

1.The petition is in accordance with the statute of the United States, and is sustained by it: 4 U. S. Stats., sec. 11, p. 728. 2.Said pueblo Indians have been recognized and treated by the federal departments as Indians in the ordinary acceptation of the term, and as such come under the law: 3 Wall. 407, two cases.3.Whether any particular class of Indians are still to be regarded as a tribe, or have ceased to hold tribal relations, is primarily a question for the political departments of the government, and if they have decided it the courts will follow their lead: Id., and following.4.The government of Spain, which originally granted the pueblo lands, held the fee in trust for the said Indians, which relation was never altered by any treaty with Mexico or the United States, or any change of the different governments: Chouteau v. Molony, 16 How. 237.5.The pueblo Indians are a community or tribe of Indians, and hold no land in severalty within each pueblo.

Wm. Breeden, for the defendant in error.

*2 The law relied upon to support the action is found in 4 United States Statutes at Large, sec. 11, p. 730.The statute in question clearly intends what may be denominated “Indian lands,” or lands to which the right of occupancy is secured or granted to an Indian tribe by treaty with the United States, and to which the ultimate absolute title is in the United States, and not lands held in fee by Indians who are citizens of the United States, and who are not Indians within the meaning of the statute, or in the usual acceptation of the term.The word tribe, as used with reference to Indians in the United States, is applied to nations of savages or uncivilized people, and that is the sense in which it is used in this statute, which applies only to lands, the right to the occupancy of which is held by uncivilized Indians having tribal organizations, and treated with by the government as independent political communities.The wild tribes of Indians are distinct, independent political communities, retaining the right of self-government, under the protection of the United States: Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515.They are not regarded as the owners of the lands occupied by them.Such lands are held to belong to the United States.The Indians have only a right of occupancy: United States v. Rogers, 4 How. 567;United States v. Rillieux's Heirs, 14 Id. 189;United States v. Fernandez, 10 Pet. 303.Over such lands the United States exercises authority for the benefit of the occupants, and to such lands the statute applies.The pueblo Indians hold their lands in fee under patents from the United States, issued by authority of an act of congress confirming grants of lands made by the governments to which New Mexico formerly pertained.The act of congress under which their patents were issued and the patents themselves are in no respect different from similar acts and patents for the benefit of individual citizens: See11 U. S. Stats. at Large, 374.The right of pueblo Indians to their lands was not derived from the United States, but by grant from the governments formerly exercising authority over New Mexico.They did not look to the United States for title to their lands, or protection in their occupancy, except to carry out the obligations of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.They were first known to the United States as citizens holding title to their lands, and came under the government entitled to all the rights of citizens.No treaty was ever made between these people and the United States.They have no tribal organization, and are not a tribe of Indians.No department of the government has attempted, or had the right to attempt, to fix their status as or decide them to be Indians.They are civilized people, living in communities which are numerous and similar to those of the Shakers and other people living in communities in other parts of the United States, and are not Indians in contemplation of the statute under which suit is brought.As they came into the government so they must remain.These people hold their lands by patent from the United States.A patent carries the fee and divests all right of the United States; and after granting a patent the United States had no more authority over their lands than over those of any other citizen: Hooper v. Scheimer, 23 How. 235;3 Wall. 492.The pueblos were citizens of the Mexican republic by virtue of the plan of Iguala, the treaty of Cordova, and decrees of the Mexican congress, found in a collection of decrees published by Mariano Galvani, vol. 1, secs. 12, 13, p. 4, andsec. 1, p. 32; also vol. 2, pp. 1, 80, 92, and sec. 16, p. 127.They were known as naturales, in contradistinction to salvajes, and were entitled to be recognized as Mexicans: Escriche, pp. 1272, 1273.They are citizens of the United States by virtue of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and entitled to all the rights of citizenship: See Treaty, 9 U. S. Stats. at Large,pp. 929, 930, arts. 8, 9.Under the Mexican government, lands were granted to all Mexican citizens without distinction as to the rights conferred: See decree of Mexican congress, August 18, 1824, appendix to Escriche, called Ordenanzas de tierras y aguas, p. 194, art. 9, of said decree.Indians were competent to take, hold, and convey real estate under the Mexican government: United States v. Ritchie, 17 How. 539, 540.The second and third points made in the brief of the United States attorney, and the authorities cited, can not apply to this case, but only to the case of Indians whose tribal organization is recognized, and whose status as Indians is fixed in the first instance by the political branch of the government, and as to the power of a state to withdraw such Indians from the operation of acts of congress concerning Indian tribes.The pueblo Indians are citizens, and their status can not be changed by action of a ministerial officer of the government, or of any department of the government.They are citizens of the United States.While the departments are competent to decide as to the continuance of the tribal organization of an Indian tribe, they can have no power to decide who are Indians, and certainly not to take away the rights of citizens.The pueblo Indians are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; consequently they have the same rights to hold and convey property, and to make and enforce contracts, as other citizens: Const. U. S., art. XIV., and act of May 31, 1870;16 U. S. Stats. at Large, sec. 16, p. 144.The district and supreme courts of New Mexico have decided adversely to the right of the United States to recover a penalty for settling on lands belonging to the pueblo Indians: See decisions supreme court New Mexico.If the defendant in error is an intruder upon the lands described in the petition of plaintiff, and a right of action exists against him, such right of action is in the pueblo, and he is not subject to a penalty to the...