The reservation of the Red Lake and Pembina Indians, in Polk
County, Minnesota, is Indian country, within the meaning of § 2139
Rev.Stat.
Page 121 U. S. 279
Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556,
affirmed to the point that § 1 of the Act of June 30, 1534, though
repealed, may be referred to for the purpose of determining what is
meant by the term "Indian country" when found in sections of the
Revised Statutes which are reenactments of other sections of that
act.
The question, certified, and the answer, are stated in the
opinion of the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an information against Baptiste Le Bris under § 2139 of
the Revised Statutes, for introducing spirituous liquors
"from some place and territory outside of the Indian country
into the Indian country, to-wit, into that part thereof lying and
being in the County of Polk, in said district, and being and known
as the Red Lake and Pembina Indian Reservation."
Le Bris demurred to the information, and the judges holding the
circuit court have certified to us that, upon the hearing of the
issues of law thus presented, their opinions were opposed upon the
following questions:
1. Is the reservation of the Red Lake and Pembina Indians in
Polk County, Minnesota, Indian country within the meaning of § 2139
of the Revised Statutes of the United States?
2. What is meant by Indian country in the heading of c. 4, tit.
28, of the Revised Statutes and in the sections in that chapter
which define crimes committed in Indian country?
3. Does § 5596 of the Revised Statutes repeal and abolish the
definition of Indian country found in § 1 of the Trade and
Intercourse Act of June 30, 1834, 4 Stat. 729?
4. If it does, are all the provisions of c. 4, tit. 28, for
punishment of crime in Indian country, nugatory?
5. If the provisions of c. 4, tit. 28, of the Revised Statutes
are not rendered nugatory by § 5596, to what locality do they
apply?
The important inquiry is whether the Red Lake and Pembina Indian
Reservation has been "Indian country," within the meaning of §
2139, since the Revised Statutes went into
Page 121 U. S. 280
effect. That section is a reenactment in part of § 20 of the Act
of June 30, 1834, c. 161, 4 Stat. 732, as amended by the Act of
March 15, 1864, c. 33, 13 Stat. 29, and it was decided by this
Court in
United States v. 43 Gallons Whisky, 93 U. S.
188, and
108 U. S. 108 U.S.
491, that this reservation was "Indian country" before the revision
of the statutes. At that time, § 1 of the Act of June 30, 1834,
supra, was in force, which defined the Indian country as
follows:
"That all that part of the United States west of the Mississippi
and not within the states of Missouri and Louisiana, or the
Territory of Arkansas, and also that part of the United States east
of the Mississippi River and not within any state to which the
Indian title has not been extinguished, for the purposes of this
act, be taken and deemed to be the Indian country."
This section was not reenacted in the Revised Statutes, though
other parts of the statute were. Consequently the section was
repealed by § 5596 of the Revision; but still we held in
Ex
Parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556,
109 U. S. 561,
that it might be referred to for the purpose of determining what
was meant by the term "Indian country" when found in sections of
the Revised Statutes which were reenactments of other sections of
this statute. That decision was made since this case was heard
below, and upon its authority we answer the first question
certified in the affirmative. The repeal of this section does not
of itself change the meaning of the term it defines when found
elsewhere in the original connection. The reenacted sections are to
be given the same meaning they had in the original statute unless a
contrary intention is plainly manifested.
As the answer to the first question in the affirmative
necessarily covers all that is material in the others, they need
not be further referred to, and it is consequently ordered that it
be certified to the court below that the first question is answered
in the affirmative, and that a further answer to the others is
deemed unnecessary.
First question answered in the affirmative; other questions
not answered.