United States and of the State, it does not follow that the United States lost jurisdiction over him for offenses committed within the limits of the reservation. We had occasion in the Matter of Heff, supra, to notice the fact that the first dealings with Indians were with them as tribes, but that of late there had been a change in the policy and a disposition to put an end to tribal organization and give to them as individuals all the rights of citizenship, saying (197 U. S. 499):

"Of late years a new policy has found expression in the legislation of Congress-a policy which looks to the breaking up of tribal relations, the establishing of the separate Indians in individual homes, free from national guardianship and charged with all the rights and obligations of citizens of the United States. Of the power of the Government to carry out this policy there can be no doubt. It is under no constitutional obligation to perpetually continue the relationship of guardian and ward. It may at any time abandon its guardianship and leave the ward to assume and be subject to all the privileges and burdens of one sui juris. And it is for Congress to determine when and how that relationship of guardianship shall be abandoned. It is not within the power of the courts to overrule the judgment of Congress. It is true there may be a presumption that no radical departure is intended, and courts may wisely insist that the purpose of Congress be made clear by its legislation, but when that purpose is made clear the question is at an end."

Notwithstanding the gift of citizenship, both the defendant and the murdered woman remained Indians by race, and the crime was committed by one Indian upon the person of another, and within the limits of a reservation. Bearing in mind the rule that the legislation of Congress is to be construed in the interest of the Indian, it may fairly be held that the statute does not contemplate a surrender of jurisdiction over an offense committed by one Indian upon the person of another Indian within the limits of a reservation; at any rate, it cannot be said to be clear that Congress intended

by the mere grant of citizenship to renounce entirely its jurisdiction over the individual members of this dependent race. There is not in this case in terms a subjection of the individual Indian to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State; no grant to him of the benefit of those laws; no denial of the personal jurisdiction of the United States.

The act of May 8, 1906, c. 2348, 34 Stat. 182, extending to the expiration of the trust period the time when the allottees of the act of 1887 shall be subject to state laws, is worthy of note as suggesting that Congress, in granting full rights of citizenship to Indians, believed that it had been hasty. See, upon the general questions discussed, United States v. Mullin, 71 Fed. Rep. 682; Rainbow v. Young, 161 Fed. Rep. 835; State v. Columbia George, 39 Oregon, 127; State v. Columbia George, 201 U. S. 641; Couture v. United States, 207 U. S. 581; Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U. S. 542. The judgment is

UNITED STATES v. SUTTON.

Reversed.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.

No. 312. Submitted October 15, 1909.-Decided December 20, 1909.

United States v. Celestine, ante, p. 278, followed, as to continuance of jurisdiction of United States over offenses committed within the limits of an Indian reservation.

The Indians, as wards of the Government, are the beneficiaries of the prohibition against the introduction of liquor into Indian country; and, under the Washington enabling act, jurisdiction and control over Indian lands remains in the United States, and Congress has power to prohibit and punish the introduction of liquor therein.

The limits of an Indian reservation are not changed by allotments in severalty during the trust period, and, where the lands allotted are subject to restrictions against alienation and to defeasance, the prohibition against liquor continues to be effective.

THE defendants were indicted in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Washington for introducing liquor into the Indian country, as thus stated in the indictment:

"To wit, into and upon a certain Indian allotment No. 670, within the limits of the boundary of the Yakima Indian Reservation, in the Eastern District of Washington, which said allotment had theretofore been allotted to a certain Indian, a member of the Yakima tribe of Indians, named George Wesslike, under and by virtue of the provision of the act of Congress of February 8, 1887, entitled 'An act to provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations, and to extend the protection of the laws of the United States and the Territories over the Indians, and for other purposes,' (24 Stat. 388,) said allotment being then and now one held in trust by the Government for said allottee and being inalienable by the said allottee without the consent of the United States."

A demurrer was filed, and on that demurrer the following facts were agreed to:

"1. That the Yakima Indian Reservation, in the Eastern District of Washington, is inhabited by the Yakima and other Indians under the general charge and control of an Indian agent and superintendent of the United States.

"2. That prior to September 3, 1908, a very large number of allotments of land within said reservation had been made to Indians entitled thereto, which said allotments had been made and allotted under and by virtue of the provision of the act of Congress of February 8, 1887, known as the general allotment act.

"3. That allotment No. 670, described in the indictment, is a part of and within the boundaries of the Yakima Indian

Reservation, and the same had been made and allotted, and the usual trust patent thereto issued to the allottee named in the indictment under the provision of the act of February 8, 1887, prior to September, 1908.

"4. That the trust limitation has not yet expired and the title to said allotment is still being held in trust by the Government; that the title to said allotment is not alienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States.

"5. That on or about September 3, 1908, the defendants did go on and upon said allotment described in the indictment, taking and carrying with them certain ardent spirits and intoxicating liquor, to wit, alcohol, in a demijohn and flasks."

The indictment was founded on the act of January 30, 1897, 29 Stat. 506, which provides:

"That any person who shall introduce or attempt to introduce any malt, spirituous, or vinous liquor, including beer, ale, and wine, or any ardent or intoxicating liquor of any kind whatsoever into the Indian country, which term shall include any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the Government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than sixty days, and by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars for the first offense and not less than two hundred dollars for each offense thereafter."

The Yakima Reservation was established under the treaty of June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951, which, in article 2, provides:

"All which tract shall be set apart, and, so far as necessary, surveyed and marked out, for the exclusive use and benefit of said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as an Indian reservation; nor shall any white man, excepting those in the employment of the Indian Department, be permitted to reside upon the said reservation without permission of the tribe and the superintendent and agent.

"ARTICLE VI. The President may, from time to time, at his discretion, cause the whole or such portions of such reservation as he may think proper, to be surveyed into lots, and assign the same to such individuals or families of the said confederated tribes and bands of Indians as are willing to avail themselves of the privilege, and will locate on the same as a permanent home, on the same terms and subject to the same regulations as are provided in the sixth article of the treaty with the Omahas, so far as the same may be applicable."

The demurrer was sustained, and thereupon the Government brought the case here on writ of error under the act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harr for the United States.

There was no appearance or brief for the defendant in

error.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The question whether the indictment charges any offense against the laws of the United States involves the validity of the act of January 30, 1897, as applied to the facts stated, and therefore the case is one properly before us under the act providing for writs of error in certain instances in criminal cases. Ch. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246; United States v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370, 397.

We have recently considered, in United States v. Celestine, ante, the question of the jurisdiction of the United States over offenses committed within the limits of a reservation, as also the effect of allotments therein upon its continued existence, and further discussion of those matters is unnecessary. The limits of the Yakima Reservation were not changed by virtue of the allotments that are referred to in the stipula