Any person other than an Indian of the full blood who shall attempt to reside in the Indian country, or on any Indian reservation, as a trader, or to introduce goods, or to trade therein, without such license, shall forfeit all merchandise offered for sale to the Indians or found in his possession, and shall moreover be liable to a penalty of $500: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any person residing among or trading with the Choctaws, Cherokees, Chickasaws, Creeks, or Seminoles, commonly called the Five Civilized Tribes, residing in said Indian country, and belonging to the Union Agency therein: And provided further, That no white person shall be employed as a clerk by any Indian trader, except such as trade with said Five Civilized Tribes, unless first licensed so to do by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, under and in conformity to regulations to be established by the Secretary of the Interior.
Notes of Decisions
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2012).
“They impose sanctions against non-Indians who attempt to introduce goods for trade on a reservation without first obtaining a license from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 25 U.S.C. § 264 , and provide that the “Commissioner .”
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard, 722 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 2013).
“They also prohibit unrecognized traders (such as AC Coin and WMS) 10 from trading with Indians and require “[t]hat no white person shall be employed as a clerk by any Indian trader .”
Anderson v. O'BRIEN, 524 P.2d 390 (Wash. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Looking toward eventual emancipation, Congress then enacted allotment statutes, setting aside to reservation Indians separate parcels of reservation land for agricultural and grazing and irrigation purposes to be utilized and possessed by the Indian much as land held in fee…”
Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 380 U.S. 685 (1965).
“729 , as amended, now 25 U. S. C. § 264 (1958 ed.) (establishing penalties for trading without a license and forbidding traders to hire white persons as clerks unless licensed to do so); 18 U.”
Tonasket v. State, 525 P.2d 744 (Wash. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Tonasket could pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 264 (1882) and 25 C.F.R. 251.”
United States ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Dev. Corp., 49 F.3d 1208 (7th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 3× “introduce goods, or to trade therein, without such license, shall forfeit all merchandise offered for sale to the Indians or found in his possession, and shall moreover be liable to a penalty of $500[J 25 U.S.C. § 264 . . This provision provides: All penalties which shall-…”
Laguna Indus., Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 845 P.2d 167 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “§ 263 authorizes the President "to prohibit the introduction of goods, or of any particular article into the country belonging to any Indian tribe"; and 25 U.S.C. § 264 provides that one "who shall attempt to reside in the Indian country, or on any Indian reservation, as a…”
Herzog Bros. Trucking v. State Tax Comm'n, 508 N.E.2d 914 (N.Y. 1987).
“, 448 US 160, 164-165 [relying on 25 USC § 264 ]). .A 1906 opinion by this court holds that, because of the unique history of the Seneca Nation of Indians in this State, New York has exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over these Indians, and the Indian trader statutes are…”
United States v. Parton, 132 F.2d 886 (4th Cir. 1943).
“The fact that, as Indians, they are not subject to the penalties prescribed by 25 U.S.C.A. § 264 , does not exempt them from the necessity of complying with the requirements of § 262, supra, if they desire to engage in business as traders upon the reservation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.