INDIAN TRIBE. A separate and distinct community or body of the aboriginal Indian race of men found in the United States.
Such a tribe, situated within the bounda ries of a state, and exercising the powers of government and sovereignty, under the na tional government, is deemed politically a state,-that is, a distinct political society, ca pable of self-government ; but it is not deem ed a foreign state in the sense of the con stitution. It is rather a domestic dependent nation. Such a tribe may properly be deem ed in a state of pupilage ; and its relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to a guardian ; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 ; Jack son v. Goodell, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 193 ; 3 Kent 308 ; Story, Const. § 1096 ; U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 384, 6 Sup. Ct. 1109, 30 L. Ed. 228; Wall v. Williamson, 8 Ala. 48.
The obligation of the United States to pro tect Indians' use of land is of honor, not of law ; they are wards and congress can make any change in the disposition of their lands which it deems best ; Conley v. Ballinger, 216 U. S. 84, 30 Sup. Ct. 224, 54 L. Ed. 393.
"They were and have been regard ed as having a semi-independent position when they preserved their tribal relations ; not as states, not as nations, not as possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty, but as a separate people with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and thus far not brought under the laws of the Union or of the state within whose limits they re sided ;" U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 6 Sup. Ct. 1109, 30 L. Ed. '228. See Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U. S. 84, 16 Sup. Ct. 1031, 41 L. Ed. 78. Their local self-government is sub ject to the supreme legislative authority of the United States ; Cherokee Nation v. R. Co., 135 U. S. 641, 10 Sup. Ct. 965, 34 L. Ed. 295.
The United States has power to pass such laws as may be necessary to their full pro tection and to punish all offences committed against them or by them within their reser vation ; U. S. v. Thomas, 151 U. S. 577, 14 Sup. Ct. 426, 38 L. Ed. 276. No state can, either by its constitution or other legislation, withdraw the Indians within its limits from the operation of the laws of congress regu lating trade with them ; notwithstanding any rights it may confer on them as electors or citizens ; U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 407,
18 L. Ed. 182 ; The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 737, 18 L. Ed. 667 ; The New York Indians, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 761, 18 L. Ed. 708. See State v. Campbell, 53 Minn. 354, 55 N. W. 553, 21 L. R. A. 169 ; nor can it authorize leases of Indian lands ; Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co. v. Lavery, 75 Hun 396, 27 N. Y. Supp. 443.
The Pueblo Indians of New Mexico are not an Indian tribe within the meaning of the acts of congress ; U. S. v. Joseph, 94 U. S. 614, 24 L. Ed. 295. The Indians residing in Maine, whose tribal organizations have ceas ed to exist, are not "Indian tribes," within the treaty-making power of the federal gov ernment ; State v. Newell, 84 Me. 465, 24 Atl. 943. The policy of congress is to vest in the courts of the Cherokee nation jurisdic tion of all controversies between Indians, or in which a member of the nation is the only party ; In re Mayfield, 141 U. S. 107, 11 Sup. Ct. 939, 35 L. Ed. 635. See INDIAN.
By act of March 3, 1893, congress inaugu rated the policy of terminating the tribal existence and government of the Indians and allotting their lands in severalty. Agree Ments were negotiated by the Dawes com mission with each of the tribes designed to carry out the objects indicated. The agree went with the Seminoles was made in 1897, with the Creeks in 1901 and 1902, with the Choctaws and Chickasaws in 1898 and in 1902, and with the Cherokees in the latter year ; Ex parte Webb, 225 U. S. 663, 32 Sup. Ct. 769, 56 L. Ed. 1248.
When Oklahoma was admitted into the Union, Nov. 16, 1907, the then existing tribal governments of the Five Civilized Tribes were continued in full force.
See Tiger v. Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, 31 Sup. Ct. 578, 55 L. Ed. 738.
Congress may prohibit the introduction of liquor in to the Indian country ; U. S. v. Sutton,' 215 U. S. 291, 30 Sup. Ct. 116, 54 L. Ed. 200.
Treaties or agreements of the United States with Indian tribes are to be construed in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians ; Jones v. Mee han, 175 U. S. 1, 20 Sup. Ct. 1, 44 L. Ed. 49.