
    THE CARRALITOS COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES AND THE APACHE INDIANS.
    [33 C. Cls. R., 90; 178 U. S. R., 280.]
    
      On the claimants' Appeal.
    
    The petition avers that the claimants are a company chartered under the laws of the State of Colorado, doing business in the Republic of Mexico; that they were citizens of the United States residing in New York, and owners of property stolen by Indians in 1880-81 living in New Mexico and Arizona; that the property was taken into the United States; that Indians from the United States stole claimants’ property in Mexico and took it into the United States. Defendants plead in bar that the depredation occurred beyond the territory of the United States and that the court has no jurisdiction. Claimants demur to the plea.
    The court below decides:
    1. The United States can not be required to make restitution for property taken on Mexican soil by Indians, though they sustained tribal relations with and brought the property into the United States.
    2. The statute (26 Stat. L., p. 851) gives the court authority “to inquire into and finally adjudicate” claims for property of citizens of “the United States talcen or destroyed by Indians belonging to any band, tribe, or nation in amity with the United States.” Though there be no limitation in terms as to the place of taking, the general principle is that the statutes of a country do not run beyond its jurisdiction.
    3. The Indian depredation act is wholly remedial and provides a forum for litigation, but creates no rights except that it extends the liability of the Indians under the Act June SO, 1884 (4 Stat. L., p. 731), to the United States.
    4. Every claimant under the act of 1891 must go back to the act of 1834 to establish a right of recovery. That act fixes the place of loss as “within the Indian country” or any “State or Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States.” The purpose is to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes and to preserve peace on the borders.'
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice Peciíham

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 28, 1900.  