outside the reservation. Pablo v. People, 23 Col. 134. As Indian lands which were not within any State when the Act of 1834 was passed are now new States, and new Indian country has since been. added to the national domain, the definition of that statute has been abrogated, but still applies to lands then embraced in the description there given. Benson v. United States, 44 F. R. 178; United States v. Rising Star Tea, 38 Id. 400, 35 Id. 403; In re Jackson, 40 Id. 372; 19 A. G. Op. 477, 482. The President can, it seems, make a reservation for Indian occupation from public domain lying within State limits. 17 A. G. Op. 258. The common law prima facie prevails in suits in the Federal courts in the Indian Territory. Pyeatt v. Powell, 51 F. R. 551; Arkansas City Bank v. Swift, 57 Kans. 460. As to the jurisdiction and judgments of such courts, see In re Mayfield, 141 U. S. 107, 114, 35 L. ed. 635; Westmoreland v. United States, 155 U. S. 545, 39 L. ed. 255; Crabtree v. Madden, 54 F. R. 426; Crabtree v. Byrne, Id. 432; Mehlin v. Ice, 56 Id. 12; In re Bonner, 57 Id. 184; Standley v. Roberts, 59 Id. 836. See also 20 A. G. Op. 215. Foreigner going into Indian country with The establishment of fisheries upon an Indian reservation is contrary to law. United States v. Sturgeon, 6 Sawyer, 29. As to property seized by the military under this section, see 18 A. G. Op. 555. Removing cattle, etc., from Indian country R. S., s. 2138. R. S., s. 2139. 30 Jan., 1897; 29 Stat. 506. Alaska is in the Indian country so far as the laws regulating the sale of liquors are concerned. 14 A. G. Op. 327; In re Carr, 3 Sawyer, 316. All reservations west of the Mississippi River which are occupied by Indian tribes, and also all other districts which are so occupied, to which the Indian title has not been extinguished, are Indian country, and remain (to a greater or less extent, as they lie within a State or Territory) subject to the provisions of this section. 16 A. G. Op. 290; United States v. Le Bris, 121 U. S. 278, 30 L, ed. 946; United States v. Martin, 8 Sawyer, 473. Each member of the tribe is to be regarded as under the charge of the Indian agent having charge of the tribe. United States v. Earl, 9 Sawyer, 79. The War Department has discretionary power over the introduction of spirituous liquors or wines into Alaska, and may permit such articles to be taken there, whether they are or are not intended for the use of officers or troops in the service of the United States. Op. 327, 401; 16 Id. 290. 14 A. G. In re Mills, 135 U. S. 263, 34 L. ed. 107; Ex parte Mayfield, 141 U. S. 107, 114, 35 L. ed. 635; Ex parte Friday, 43 F. R. 916; Benson v. United States, 44 Id. 178; In re Bond, 49 Id. 48; State v. Frazier, 28 Neb. 438. Beer is not a spirituous liquor under this statute, and in general where the term "liquor" is used in a specific sense, spirituous and distilled beverages are intended, as distinguished from fermented ones. Sarlls v. United States, 152 U. S. 570, 574, 38 L. ed. 556. This section includes a sale outside the Indian country to an Indian under the charge of an Indian agent. Clark v. Bates, 1 Dak. 42. A Territorial legislature may also restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors to Indians under Rev. Sts. § 1851. Territory v. Guyott, 9 Mont. 46. The Act of Congress of Feb. 8, 1887 (24 St. 390), by which Indians adopting the habits of civilized life may become citizens, is constitutional. State v. Norris, 37 Neb. 299. It does not give them such rights or immunities as to invalidate a State law making it a felony to sell or furnish intoxicating liquors to any Indian. People v. Bray, 105 Cal. 344. This section, prior to its amendment, did not apply to lager beer. Sarlls v. United States, 152 U. S. 570, 38 L. ed. 556. Anheuser-Busch B. Ass'n v. Bond, 66 F. R. 653; In re McDonough, 49 Id. 360; United States v. Ellis, 51 Id. 808. Transportation of such liquors through Indian country does not introduce it into Indian country. United States v. 29 Gallons of Whiskey, 45 F. R. 847. This section applies to an Indian in the United States army, or to one who lives on allotted land and is an elector in a State, their tribes being under an agent. United States. Hurshman, 53 F. R. 542; Renfrow v. United States, 3 Okl. 161. Under its power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes (Const. Art. 1, § 8), Congress had authority to pass the Act of Jan. 30, 1897 (29 St. 506), which prohibits and punishes the sale of spirituous liquors to any Indian to whom an allotment of lands had been made while the government held the title thereto in trust for the Indian. Farrell v. United States, 110 F. R. 942. See Mulligan v. United States, 120 Id. 98. This section applies not only to white men who sell or give away liquor but to Indians also, and it is no defense that the Indian recipient was off the reservation when he received the liquor; neither is wrongful intent necessary to make one guilty under the statute. United States v. Miller, 105 F. R. 944. Where an Act of Congress makes mineral lands in an Indian reservation subject to entry under the Federal laws, a valid location of a mineral claim thereunder segregates such claim from the reservation, and extinguishes the Indian title thereto, so that the land embraced therein ceases to be "Indian country," and this section does not apply to such lands. A stock of liquor is not liable to seizure by being transported across an Indian reservation to a place where the owner may lawfully dispose of it. United States v. Four Bottles Sour-mash Whiskey, 90 F. R. 720. See United States v. Kopp, 110 Id. 160. Ex parte Dick, 141 Id. 5. See further, United States v. Sutton, 215 U. S. 291, 165 F. R. 253; United States v. Hall, 171 F. R. 214; United States v. Boss, 160 Id. 132; In re Chavez, 72 F. R. 1006; United States v. Chung Sing, 4 Ariz. 217; United States v. Buckles, 6 Ind. Ter. 319; Parris v. United States, 1 Id. 43; United States v. Winslow, 3 Sawyer, 337; United States v. Osborn, 2 F. R. 58. Operating a distillery in Indian country. R. S., s. 2141. The offense under § 2139 is not limited to acts done within the Indian country. United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 18 L. ed. 182; United States v. 43 Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U. S. 188, 23 L. ed. 846; United States v. Osborne, 6 Sawyer, 406; United States v. Earl, 17 F. R. 78; United States v. Flynn, 1 Dillon, 451; United States v. Tom, 1 Oregon, 26; United States v. Burdick, 1 Dak. 142. St. March 30, 1802, described what was to be considered as the Indian country at that time, and also what it should be subsequently, as purchases might be made from time to time by the United States from the Indians. Carrying spirituous liquors into a Territory so purchased, even though it should be at the time exclusively inhabited by Indians, would not be an offense within the meaning of the provisions of the Act so as to subject the goods of the trader, found in company with these liquors, to seizure and forfeiture. American Fur Co. v. United States, 2 Pet. 358, 7 L. ed. 450. The United States Supreme Court follows the decision of the political departments of the government as to whether or not any particular class of Indians is still to be regarded as a tribe, or the tribal relation has ceased. United States v. Holliday, supra. A State has no power, either by constitutional or legislative enactment, to withdraw the Indians within its limits from the operation of the laws of Congress regulating trade with them; nowithstanding it may confer citizenship or the right of suffrage on such Indians. Id.; United States v. Shaw-Mux, 2 Sawyer, 364. Section 2140 is constitutional. United States v. 43 Gallons of Whiskey, supra. An internal-revenue license relieves from penalties imposed for want of one, and does not justify violations of law which do not depend on the want of one. United States v. 43 Gallons of Whiskey, 108 U. S. 491, 27 L. ed. 803. Officers can only seize under § 2140 within Indian country, outside whereof such acts make them tort feasors. Bates v. Clark, 95 U. S. 204, 27 L. ed. 471. The scienter or intent is immaterial. United States v. Osborne, United States v. Earl, and United States v. Flynn, supra; United States v. Leathers, 6 Sawyer, 17. An Indian once in charge of the Indian bureau is within this section unless discharged by the United States. United States v. Earl, supra. Nor does notice that a superintendency is to be discontinued relieve an Indian from superintendence before the discontinuance is actual. United States v. Wirt, 3 Sawyer, 161. The bounds of a reservation are not controlled by monuments set by government officers without authority. United States v. Leathers, supra. An Indian, not within the exception, is liable under this section. United States v. Shaw-Mux, 2 Sawyer, 364. An order to ship, which is only an offer to buy, is not an attempt to commit the offense prohibited by § 2140. United States v. Stephen, 12 F. R. 53. The act herein prohibited may be a crime by local law as well, and so constitute two offenses, and be liable to two penalties. Oregon v. Coleman, 1 Oregon, 191. The team and harness by which the prohibited conveyance is effected are liable to seizure, but the justification of seizure must show that the conveyance was by white men or Indians. Webb v. Nickerson, 11 Oregon, 382. Spirits merely in transit through Indian country are not within § 2140. United States v. Carr, 2 Mont. 234. See further, 22 A. G. Op. 232. Assaulting an Indian or other person R. S., s. 2142. Ex parte Brown, 40 F. R. 81; United States v. Williams, 2 Id. 61; Jennings v. United States, 2 Ind. Ter. 670; Williams v. United States, 1 Id. 560. Arson in Indian country Forgery and mail depredations in Indian Returning to Indian country after removal R. S., s. 2143. R. S., s. 2144. It has been held that the penalty does not make the statute criminal. In re Seagraves, 4 Okl. 422; United States v. Payne, 22 F. R. 426; United States v. Baker, 4 Ind. Ter. 544. But see United States, v. Stocking, 87 F. R. 857. See also United States v. Sturgeon, 6 Sawyer, 29. TITLE XXXIX PATENTS Falsely marking, etc., articles as patented R. S., s. 4901. This statute, being penal, must be strictly construed, and does not apply where the article to which the word "patent" was affixed was |