426 INDIAN TRIBES OF WASHINGTON TERRITORY. 
or in part among them. The boundaries of this jurisdiction can be settled by the superintendent, 
as it is advised that the Indians living within it be for the most part left to the operation of civil 
law; the duties of the sub-agent will not be more onerous than can be performed with the 
necessary attention to his other occupations, and no particular residence need be furnished or 
designated. 
In the present condition of the Territory there is great confusion as to the applicability of the 
laws regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes. For certain purposes it is Indian country, 
while for others it assuredly is not, and in every respect it is desirable that Congress draw the 
line of distinction. 
The difference between the eastern and western sections of the Territory may require some 
few differences in legislation. The western portion is as yet the only one where settlements 
have been made; it is there that the bulk of the population will continue to be ; but very radical 
amendments are demanded in the other also. The following have suggested themselves: 
Act of June 30,1834. Section 2, prohibiting trade with the Indians without license, to be 
repealed, except, of course, in spirituous liquors, the introduction of which into the Territory 
east of the mountains may continue to be illegal. West of them, however, the law as against 
importation is nugatory, and should be repealed. The repeal of sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, will 
necessarily follow. In case of the settlement of the country by the whites, there will of course 
be merchants and traders, and the Indians should have the right to purchase where they can get 
the best and cheapest goods. This they will do in any event, and the section will continue to be 
a dead letter, even if not repealed. 
Section 7 to be limited to clothing and goods of American or European manufacture. These 
Indians have few peltries, and look forward to the sale of stock, horses, and potatoes, as a benefit 
to be derived from the incoming of settlers. 
Section 9 to be repealed, and, as a substitute, the marking ot cattle, horses, mules, hogs, and 
other domestic animals, with conspicuous ear or other marks, to be required, which marks, as in 
the western States, to be recorded in the office of the clerk of the county; a penalty to be affixed 
to the effacing of marks, adopting a mark previously recorded, forging a mark, or falsely marking 
animals. 
Section 20. It is proposed that in lieu of the penalty here affixed, the jury shall impose the 
fine—not, however, to be less than say $50 for each offence ; and also the term of imprisonment, 
if that is not repealed. One practical difficulty in the execution of the present law is, that juries 
are inclined to consider the amount of the penalty as too great to rest upon Indian evidence only; 
some other changes will follow from the amendment proposed to section 25. 
Section 25. For the purpose of better defining the limits of federal and territorial jurisdiction, 
it is proposed that the power of the former shall extend to all cases of felony, and that of the latter 
to cases of misdemeanor ; that the federal courts have also power to appoint commissioners in 
each county, whose duties and powers shall be the same as those of commissioners of the United 
States courts in other States and Territories, and who shall be entitled to the same fees as 
justices of the peace in the Territory of Washington. 
As an additional section, it is recommended that in all cases where the military forces of the 
United States shall be employed against Indians, and shall take as prisoners or enforce the 
delivery of persons accused of any crime, it shall be competent for them to try by court-martial 
and inflict such punishment as the case may warrant, even to that of death. The object of this 
provision is, the greater impression upon the tribes produced by a speedy punishment, and the 
saving of the great expense consequent upon the keeping of prisoners until courts can be con- 
vened at distant places. The rules of the common law, moreover, in relation to evidence, are 
so glaringly inapplicable to cases where Indian testimony is taken, that a conviction would be 
utterly impossible in most instances, if depending entirely upon it. 
There is another measure which, under proper regulations, it is believed would prove of essen- 
