As to non-liability of U. S. property to assessment for local improvements see note under Art. XI § 5 and also Pol, Code § 7.

As a matter of historical interest it is noted that even in territorial times a trial for homicide committed on an Indian reserve was to be tried on the federal side of the territorial court and governed by the U. S. statutes and rules of the common law. McCall v. U. S. 1 Dak. 320, 46 N. W. 608.

In Indian country the relation of landlord and tenant could not legally exist. Uhlig v. Garrison, 2 Dak. 71, 2 N. W. 253.

Deed by an Indian during the restriction against alienation specified in an act of Congress was held void although the U. S. patent to the Indian contained 110 restriction. Taylor v. Brown, 5 Dak. 335, 40 N. W. 525. Affirmed in 147 U. S. 640, 37 L. ed. 313, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 549.

A tax deed upon land was void where the taxes were levied at a time when the title was in the United States Government, the entry having been suspended. Duncan v. Newcomer, 9 S. D. 375, 69 N. W. 580.

The state court is without jurisdiction of an action by a tribal Indian against an Indian agent for trespass committed on lands within the reservation. Peano v. Brenman, 20 S. D. 342, 106 N. W. 409.

The proceeds from the sale of inherited allotted lands deposited in accordance with federal regulations are not subject to execution issued on a judgment against the Indian who sold the land. Minder v. First Nat. Bk. 22 S. D. 14, 114 N. W. 1094.

Real property owned by the U. S. Government is exempt from special assessments for local improvements.

Whittaker v. City of Deadwood, 23 S. D. 538, 122 N. W. 590, 139 Am. St. Rep. 1076.

al

The Great Sioux Indian Reservation was dissolved in 1889 and divided into smaller reservations and certain land outside of said smaller reservations was restored to the public domain. An offense committed by one Indian against another Indian on such land, though owned by an Indian allottee, was subject to the jurisdiction of the state court such land having ceased to be "Indian country" by its restoration to the public domain. The fact that thereafter some Indian might obtain an allotment of some portion thereof under the federal law permitting an Indian to acquire an allotment on the public domain off his reservation would not reinvest the United States with exclusivo jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians generally on such an allotment. Ex parte Moore, 28 S. D. 339, 133 N. W. 817, 32 Ann. Cas. 648.

A contract made by an Indian for the sale of land held by him under trust patent with restriction against alienation is a nullity. In an action by him to quiet title he need not, in view of the federal statutes decisions and regulations, refund the consideration paid under the contract. Colombe v. Wilson, 29 S. D. 49, 135 N. W. 668, 33 Ann. Cas. 894.

The state courts have jurisdiction of the crime of bigamy committed by an Indian, who has abandoned tribal relations and taken land in severalty though he is still under the supervision of the Indian agent, though the offense be committed with another Indian and though committed on an Indian reservation, the act of Congress of February 2, '03 which conferred jurisdiction of

certain offenses on the federal courts, not having specified bigamy. State v. Nimrod, 30 S. D. 239, 138 N. W. 377.

Whether while the land was under the control of the Interior Department a county court had jurisdiction to determine the heirs of a deceased Indian allottee under trust patent was not decided inasmuch as the circuit court of the state had jurisdiction over an action to determine adverse claims begun after approval by the Secretary of the Interior of a deed from the purported heirs. Egan v. McDonald, 36 S. D. 92, 153 N. W. 915.

A deed purporting to be from the heirs of a deceased Indian allottee and approved by the Secretary of the Interior conveys good prima facie title. Tripp v. Sieler, 38 S. D. 161 N. W. 337; Oldham v. Nelson. 38 S. D. 161 N. W. 814.

An Indian allottee may maintain actions in the state courts for the redress of wrongs against his person or property. Blackbody v. Maupin, 38 S. D. -, 162 N. W. 393.

A judgment against an Indian is not a lien on land thereafter acquired from the U. S. by him as heir of a deceased allottee under trust patent. Carlow v. Jordan, 38 S. D. 162 N. W. —.

The reservation of federal control was meant to be as broad as the duty which the United States assumed in regard to these lands, which was to secure to the Indians the peaceful possession thereof as their homes and to protect their persons and property thereon. C. S. v. Ewing, 47 Fed. 809.

The U. S. Circuit Court of appeals has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of conviction of a capital crime, such jurisdiction being in the U. S. Supreme Court. Under the Acts of Congress the murder of one Indian by another is punishable by death. Good Shot v. U. S. 104 F. 257, 43 C. C. A. 525.

Congre. has not renounced its power to regulate the traffic in intoxicating liquors with Indian and

mixed blood allottees. Status of mixed blood Indians. Farrell v. U. S. 110 F. 942, 49 C. C. A. 183.

Land reserved by a treaty or Act of Congress for Indian tribes is not a part of the public domain. Patent issued by land department within its jurisdiction is not open to collateral attack. King v. McAndrews, 111 F. 860, 50 C. C. A. 29.

Indian allottee under Act of Cong. Feby. 8, '87, 24 Stat. 288 held to be subject to trial under the state laws in a prosecution for rape and not subject to trial in the federal court under Act of Cong. Jany. 15 '97, 29 Stat. 487, because that act related to offenses committed within an Indian reservation and not on allotted land. U. S. v. Kiya, 126 Fed. 879.

Act of Congress, 28 Stat. 305, as amended contemplates the selection of specific land for allotment before bringing suit thereon in the federal court. Reynolds v. U. S. 174 Fed. 212, 98 C. C. A. 220.

Under Act of Congress, 32 Stat. 793, a subsequent crime committed on a lot within a townsite was not within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. U. S. v. La Plant, 200 Fed. 92.

As to rights of an Indian to allotment of lands where she had ceased tribal relations see Reynolds v. U. S., 205 Fed, 685.

Lands formerly a part of an Indian reservation and which have not been restored to the public domain but are held by an Indian allottee under trust patent are Indian lands over which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. This decision, on a materially different state of facts, arrived at a different result from that in Ex parte Moore, 28 S. D. 339 and discharged the applicant from custody. Ex parte Van Moore, 221 Fed. 954

The word "allotment" is the term commonly used to describe land held by Indians after allotment and before the issuance of the patent in fee. Estes v. U. S. 225 Fed. 980, 141 C. C. A. 102.

The citizenship of Indian allottees conferred by Act of Congress did not operate to withdraw them nor their property from the control and protection of the U. S. government. Not only is the personal property issued by the U. S. government to Indian allottess, who maintain their tribal relations, exempt from taxation by the state but also the increase therefrom and also property received in exchange therefor. Such property is the property of the U. S impressed with a trust for the benefit of said Indians and is within the exclusive control of the government. U. S. v. Pearson, 231 Fed. 270.

Definition of "Indian Country" see ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556, 27 L. ed. 1030, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396.

The words "patent or other grant" in subdivision two above refer to the patent or other grant by which absolute ownership is conveyed. Hence allotted lands held in trust for 25 years after allotment are not taxable before the expiration of such period. Nor are permanent improvements on such land's taxable. Nor is personal property furnished by the U. S. government to allottees taxable. U. S. v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 47 L. ed. 532, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478, reversing U. S. v. Rickert, 106 F 1.

A state statute cannot make a deed from an Indian allottee executed and delivered prior to the removal of the restriction upon alienation the basis of passing subsequently acquired title when the federal statute pronounces it utterly void. (Reversing Simonson v. Monson, 22 S. D. 238, 117 N. W. 133). Monson v. Simonson, 231 U. S. 341, 58 L. ed. 260, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 71.

As to the jurisdiction of federal courts over crimes committed on allotted land during the continuance of the trust period see U. S. v. Pelican, 232 U. S. 442, 58 L. ed. 676, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396.

Upon accepting a cession of lands in a former Indian reservation where there remain a large number

of Indians in possession of land under trust patents the Congress has the power, to the exclusion of the state authority, to prohibit the sales of intoxicating liquors upon ceded lands although the sales are not to Indians, and such power will continue as long as the Congress deems it necessary to the protection of the Indians from the evils of intemperance, viz: as long as the presence and status of the Indians sustain it as a federal regulation. Perrin v. U. S. 232 U. S. 479, 58 L. ed. 691, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387.

Act of Congress, July 4, 1884, 23 Stat. at L. 96, ch. 180, Comp. Stat. 1913 § 4612 relative to Indian homestead entries did not repeal Act, Mch. 3, 1875, 18 Stat. at L. 420, ch. 131, Comp. Stat. 1913 § 4611. They are not repugnant and had different fields of application. U. S. v. Hemmer, 241 U. S. 379, 60 L. ed. 1055, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 659. Followed in Porter v. Steinmetz, 37 S. D. —, 159 N. W. 39.

Act of Congress prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to an Indian, who has taken an allotment, during the period of restriction against alienation sustained as within the power of Congress over Indian tribes. U. S. v. Nice, 241 U. S 591, 60 L. ed. 1192, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 696. Adultery committed by one Indian with another on an Indian reservation is not punishable under U. S. Pen. Code § 316, Comp. Stat. 1913 § 10, 489. It is the policy of Congress to let the relations of the Indians among themselves be regulated by tribal customs and laws together with regulations by administrative officers. U. S. v. Quiver, 241 U. S. 602, 60 L. ed. 1196, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699.

See notes on the introduction of intoxicating liquor into Indian Country in 131 C. C. A. 171.

For matters relating to the leasing of Indian lands see note in 136 C. C. A. 646.

For note as to the alienation of Indian lands see 139 C. C. A. 572.

Ch. 89, '01, amending § 4, Art. 13. Limitation of Debt. Voted on Nov. 1902. Yes, 32,810; no, 13,599.

Ch. 97, '03, proposing Art. 29. Salary of Atty. Gen. Voted on Nov. 1904. Yes, 32,328; no, 43,974.

Ch. 98, '03, amending § 1, Art. 20. Seat of Government at Mitchell. Voted on Nov. 1904. Yes, 41,155; no, 58,617.

Ch. 99, '03, amending § 11, Art. 8. School Funds. Voted on Nov. 1904. Yes, 38,681; no, 21,424.

Ch. 68, '05, amending § 7, Art. 9. County Supt. Voted on Nov. 1906. Yes, 35,806; no, 15,971.

Ch. 69, '05, amending § 23, Art. 5. Municipal Courts. Voted on Nov. 1906. Yes, 29,417; no, 18,755.

Ch. 70, '05, proposing new § 6, Art. 21. Drainage. Voted on Nov. 1906. Yes, 31,151; no, 18,799.

Ch. 71, '05, amending § 1, Art. 11. Twine Plant Levy. Voted on Nov. 1906. Yes, 33,285; no, 19,895.

Ch. 96, '07, amending Art. 11.Revenue and Taxation. Voted on Nov. 1908. Yes, 34,915; no, 47,732.

Ch. 97, '07, proposing Art. 29. Sal ary of Atty. Gen. Voted on Nov. 1908. Yes, 43,908; no, 52,437.

Ch. 18, '09, amending § 9, Art. 8. Leasing Public Lands. Voted on Nov. 1910. Yes, 48,152; no, 44,220.

Ch. 59, '09, proposing Art. 29. Salary of Atty. Gen. Voted on Nov. 1910. Yes, 35,932; no, 52,397.

Ch. 138, '09, proposing new § 10, Art. 7. Woman Suffrage. Voted on Nov. 1910. Yes, 35,290; no, 57,709.

Ch. 139, '09, amending § 4, Art. 13. Limitation of Debt. Voted on Nov. 1910. Yes, 32,613; no, 52,243.

Ch. 187, '09, amending Art. 11. Revenue and Taxation. Voted on Nov. 1910. Yes, 29,830; no, 52,943.

Ch. 188, '09, proposing new § 6, Art. 14. State Institutions. Voted on Nov. 1910. Yes, 36,128; no, 47, 625.

Ch. 265, 11, amending § 2, Art. 11. Taxation. Voted on Nov. 1912. Yes, 70,686; no, 31,110,

Ch. 129, '13, amending § 6, Art. 3. Four Year Legislative Term. Voted on Nov. 1914. Yes, 29,746; no, 45,051.

Ch. 130, '13, amending § 5, Art. 8. School Lands. Voted on Nov. 1914. Yes, 45,554; no, 35,102.

Ch. 131, '13, amending § 5, Art. 9. County Supt. Voted on Nov. 1914. Yes, 32,092; no, 45,733.

Ch. 132, '13, amending § 1, Art. 3. Initiative and Referendum. Voted on Nov. 1914. Yes, 28,226; no, 43,162.

Ch. 133, '13, amending § § 2 and 3, Art. 14. State Institutions. Voted on Nov. 1914. Yes, 29,601; no, 44,107.

Ch. 134, '13, amending § 1, Art. 7. Woman Suffrage. Voted on Nov. 1914. Yes, 39, 605; no, 51,519.

Ch. 135, '13, amending § 7, Art. 5. Supreme Court. Voted on Nov. 1914. Yes, 36,317; no, 36,543.

Ch. 136, '13, proposing new § 7, Art. 21. Irrigation. Voted on Nov. 1914. Yes, 32, 958; no, 40,457.

Ch. 137, 13, Shall a Constitution_ al Convention be called? Voted on Nov. 1914. Yes, 34,832; no, 51,585.

Ch. 229 '15 proposing new § 7, Art. 21. Irrigation. Voted on Nov. 1916. Yes, 58,775; 44,238.

no,

Ch. 230 '15, amending § 2, Art. 21. Salaries of Public officers. Voted on Nov. 1916. Yes, 39,169; no, 61.223.

Ch. 231 '15, proposing new Art. 24. Prohibition. Voted on Nov. 1916. Yes. 65,334; no, 53,380.

Ch. 232, '15, amending § 9 Art. 8. School Lands. Voted on Nov. 1916. Yes, 41,379; no, 61,798.

Ch. 233 '15, amending § 1 Art. 13. Rural Credits. Voted on Nov. 1916. Yes, 57,569; no, 41,957. Ch. 234 '15, amending § 1 Art. 7. Woman Suffrage. Voted on Nov. 1916. Yes, 53,432; no, 58,350. Ch. 235 '15, amending Art. 11. Revenue and Finance. Voted on Nov. 1916. Yes, 43,793; no, 55,568. Ch. 236 '15, amending § 2 Art. 23, Constitutional Convention. Voted Yes, 35,377; no,

on Nov. 1916. 56,432.