ROSS, Circuit Judge.
We see no merit in the argument for the plaintiff in error. What it is contended he could have shown, had the trial court permitted him to procure witnesses at the expense of the government, cannot, of course, be considered, for no such witnesses were procured or appeared. That the matter of such procurement was within the discretion of the court is both statutory and settled by the courts. Rev. Stat. § 878 (Comp. St. § 1489); Goldsby v. U.S., 160 U.S. 70, 16 S. Ct. 216, 40 L. Ed. 343; O'Hara v. U.S., 129 F. 551, 64 C.C.A. 81.
The claim that the woman to whom the liquor was alleged and shown to have been sold by the plaintiff in error was not an Indian, because, according to the evidence, not entitled to any allotment under the Indian Allotment Act, is unsound, for the reason that the national guardianship over the Indians continues (in the absence of an act of Congress to the contrary) as long as the tribal relations exist. In the present case there was testimony to show that such relations did exist. And there was also testimony tending to show the alleged sales of the alleged liquor by the plaintiff in error to the Indian woman on the occasions and at the times and place alleged in the indictment.
The judgment is affirmed.