FORTY-THREE GALLONS OF OOQNAO BRANDL  
that I would in any criminal case undertake to denne the meaning of
the words "Indian country" as used in the statutes of the United States,
but I do say that the meaning just suggested seems to me more rea-
sonable than the one insisted upon by the district attorney in this
case; and for that reason, as well as because of the penal character
of the statute, I should feel constrained, if I were to define these
terms at all, to construe them as synonymous with Indian reserva-
tions. ·
In this case it is not claimed that the liquor was seized within
the limits of an Indian reservation, and it follows, according to the
view I have taken of the statutes, that the seizure was unauthor-
ized.
‘Without, therefore, discussing any of the other questions raised by
counsel, as this conclusion is decisive of the case, it is ordered that
the decree of the district court be reversed, and the cause be re-
manded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with this
iopinion. ·
Norm. Congress may exercise its power to regulate commerce with the
Indian tribes to the same extent as with foreign nations. U. S. v.01Lsna, 1
McLean, 254. The power to regulate intercourse between the tribes and
individrialindians includes the power to prohibit the trairic in spirituous
liquors. U. S. v. Shaw-mum, 2 Sawy. 364. The power may be exercised,
although the trailic is wholly within the territorial limits of a state. U. S. v.
_Holliday, 3 Wall. 407. When the Indian territory is within the limits of a
state, congress is limited to the regulation of commercial intercourse with such
tribes as exist as adistinct community, governed by their own laws, and rest-
ing for their protection on the faith of treaties and laws of the Union. (U. S.
v. Bailey, 1 McLean, 234; U. S. v. Cisna, Id. 254; State v. Foreman, 8_Serg.
256;) and the state cannot withdraw them from the operation of the laws of
Congress. U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407. Indians on a reservation within a
state are not citizens or members of the body politic, but are considered as
dependent tribes, governed by their own usages and chiefs. Holden pv. Joy,
17 Wall. 211; Goodall v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 693; Jackson v. Wood, 7 Johns.
290; Strong v. .Waterman, 11 Paige, 607. So the liability of an inn·keeper on
an Indian reservation within the limits of a state is to be determined accord-
ing to the laws of the tribe. Horland v. Pack, Peck, (Tenn.) 151. Where the
country occupied by Indians is not within the territorial limits of a state,
congress may provide for the punishment of offences there, no matter by whom
committed. U. S. v. Rogers, 4 How. 567. The carrying of spirituous liquors
into a territory purchased by the United States after March 30, 1802, although
frequented and inhabited exclusively by Indians, is not an offence within the
meaningvofthe acts of congress so as to subject to forfeiture. American Fur
Oo. v. U. S. 2 Pet. 358. If Indians occupy territory of very limited extent,
surrounded. by a white population which necessarily have daily intercourse