INDIAN. The name of the aboriginal in habitants of America.
In general, Indians had no political rights in the United States ; they could not vote at the general elections for officers, nor hold office. In New York they were considered as citizens, and not as aliens, owing allegi ance to the government and entitled to its protection ; Jackson v. Goodell, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 188. The Cherokee nation in Georgia was a distinct community ; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 515, 8 L. Ed. 483. See Lee v. Glover, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 189 ; Danforth v. Wear, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 673, 6 L. Ed. 188; Dana v. Dana, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 181; Jack son v. King, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 506. The title of the Indians to land was that of occupation merely, but could be divested only by pur chase or conquest ; Gillespie v. Cunningham, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 19 ; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 546; Godfrey v. Beardsley, 2 McClean 412, Fed. Cas. No. 5,497; John son v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 571, 5 L. Ed. 681; 2 Washb. R. P. 521; 3 Kent 378.
By act of March 3, 1871, no Indian na tion or tribe within the United States shall be recognized as an independent nation with whom it may contract, by treaty, but prior treaties are not to be thereby impaired.
By act of March 3, 1885, any Indian com mitting certain crimes within any territory, and within or without an Indian reservation, is subject to the laws of the territory, and shall be tried in the same manner and be subject to the same penalties as other per sons charged with the same crimes ; and if such offence be committed within a reserva tion in a state, he shall be subject to the same laws, etc., as if it were committed with in the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. This act was held constitutional in U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 6 Sup. Ct. 1109, 30 L. Ed. 228. See U. S. v. Thomas, 151 U. S. 577, 14 Sup. Ct. 426, 38 L. Ed. 276; U. S. v. King, 81 Fed. 625. The United States courts have jurisdiction of crimes committed by Indians within a reservation ; U. S. v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, 30 Sup. Ct. 93, 54 L. Ed. 195.
The crime of murder committed by one Cherokee Indian upon the person of another within the jurisdiction of the Cherokee na tion is not an offence against the United States ; Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 376, 16 Sup. Ct. 986, 41 L. Ed. 196.
The indictment, the venue of the trial, and the jury on the prosecution of an Indian for murder committed in a territory are to be according to the territorial laws ; In re Gon-shay-ee, 130 U. S. 343, 9 Sup. Ct. 542, 32 L. Ed. 973.
The act of February 8, 1887, provides for the allotment of lands to Indians in several ty. By it Indians receiving allotments there by have the benefit of, and are subject to, the laws both civil and criminal of the state or territory in which they reside ; In re Heff, 197 U. S. 488, 25 Sup. Ct. 506, 49 L. Ed. 848. Every Indian born in the United States to whom an allotment shall have been made by this act, or under any law or treaty, and any Indian born within the United States who has voluntarily taken up his residence therein apart from any Indian tribe and adopted the habits of civilized life, is made a citizen of the United States, without im pairing his right to tribal property.
Under the act of April 26, 1906, Indians are not permitted to alienate or encumber allotted lands within twenty-five years. The leasing of their lands, other than homesteads for more than one year, may be made un der -rules prescribed by the secretary of the interior ; in case of the inability of a full blood Indian owning a homestead to work or farm the same, the secretary may au thorize the leasing of it ; Tiger v. Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, 31 Sup. Ct. 578, 55 L. Ed. 738. Authority is given to all persons of lawful age and sound mind to dispose of their property by will, but they may not dis inherit parent, spouse or children of full blood Indian unless with the approval of a judge of a United States court in the terri tory or by the United States commissioner ; id.; though such heirs have been admitted to full citizenship ; id.; Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 23 Sup. Ct. 145, 47 L. Ed. 183 ; U. S. v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 23 Sup. Ct. 478, 47 L. Ed. 532.
The United States has supervision over the right of full-blood Indians to dispose of their lands by will and to require their con veyances of inherited lands to be approved by a court ; Tiger v. Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, 31 Sup. Ct. 578, 55 L. Ed. 738. Con troversies over allotments while the same are held in trust by the United States are not primarily cognizable in any court; Mc Kay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 458, 27 Sup. Ct. 346, 51 L. Ed. 566.
Prior to the act of August 15, 1894, the authority to determine the rights of claim ants to allotments was vested in the secreta ry of the interior ; Hy-Yu-Tse-Mil-Kin v. Smith, 194 U. S. 408, 24 Sup. Ct. 676, 48 L.
Ed. 1039. That act provided that all Indi ans entitled to allotments may prosecute or defend any action in relation thereto in the circuit court of the United States. The judg ment in favor of any claimant to an allot ment has the same effect, when properly cer tified to the secretary of the interior, as if such allotment had been allowed and approv ed by him ; McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 458, 27 Sup. Ct. 346, 51 L. Ed. 566. This act was amended February 6, 1901, the amendment expressly requiring that in such proceedings the United States should be defendant; Mc Kay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 458, 27 Sup. Ct. 346, 51 L. Ed. 566.
An Indian woman who marries a citizen of the United States, voluntarily resides apart from her tribe, and adopts the habits of civilized life, becomes a citizen of the United States and of the state in which she resides ; Hatch v. Ferguson, 57 Fed. 959 ; in a few states, marriages between white per sons and Indians are forbidden by statute ; Tiff. Pers. & Dom. ReL 26. See CITIZENS; INDIAN TRIBE.