REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1923 75 
The Attorney General’s Opinion 
(See page 492 ff, Opimions, 1915) 
1 The Federal Government has always claimed guardianship and 
control over the Indian tribes. 
2 The power of Congress to govern Indian tribes by legislation, 
and thereby to abrogate or supersede Indian treaties has been upheld 
by the Supreme Court. 
3 The principle that a State may act in the absence of affirmative 
legislation on the part of Congress is not applicable to the govern- 
ment of tribal Indians. 
4 Federal and state authorities hold that state laws do not apply 
to Indians living in their tribal relations. 
5 Power to terminate federal guardianship of tribal Indians and 
to break up the tribal organization is exclusively in the Federal 
Government. 
6 Conservation laws do not extend over the Indians residing in 
tribal relations upon reservations within the borders of New York 
State. 
Growing out of this opinion the State authorities began to assume 
that the laws of the State, as well as the conservation laws, did not 
apply to the State Indians. The Indians themselves in instances 
began to affirm that state laws did not affect them. 
_ It was found that the federal authorities thought in some instances 
that New York should be empowered to deal with her Indian popu- 
lation; others thought that the Federal Government should have the 
proper machinery provided for Indian administration in New York, 
but wished New York authorities to make suggestions. 
Practical Considerations Concerning the Indian and the State 
If, as has been contended by the New York Indians and by the 
Attorney General of New York, the Indians of New York are 
wards of the Federal Government and not of the State, then the 
Federal Government and not the State is charged with the duty of 
supplying the schools, institutions, relief for the poor and sick and 
other matters. 
The Federal Government has not done these things and maintains 
that its sole duty is to carry out its treaty obligations. 
The failure of the Federal Government ever to exercise the duties 
of guardian, save in cases involving land cessions and tribal auton- 
omy, has made it necessary for the State during the past 100 years 
