The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-10-01
PRE-EMPTIoN BY INDIANS.
ATTORNEY GENERAL,s OgncE,

OF the 2cth ut the subject of Superior City by dspo
sing of the question reserved in my communication of
the I'd instant which is stated by you in the following
words
Is halbood Indian having such tribal relations as to
have been made participant in the treaty of 30h Sepem-
be 1854 with the Chippewas of Lake Superior under the
Stat at Large) person who the 5th of April 1854
could have legally claimed right of presumption under
act of 4h September ls4lI giving such right only to
citizen of the United States who had filed bis dec
aration of intention to become citizen required by the
naturalization laws 2"
The 7th clause above referred to- is in the following
words
a7th Each head of family or single person over twenty
years of at The present time of the mixed blood be-
longing TO the Chippewas of Lake Superior shall be en-
tied to eighty OF land be selected by them under
the direction of the President and which shall be secured
to them by patent in the usual form"
1t is not expressly declared in the statement of the
that the land which the hafbreeds in question
claim here by pre-empon is other land than the eighty
lots granted to them by the treaty but the
implies this because it finds that the claim of pre-emp
ton dates from April 1854 while the treaty not
entered into until the following September. Besides
which, the land in controversy was not ceded by the
treaty of September 1854 but by that of October A. 1912
appears by the papers from the Land Oice(Sec vii
Stat at Large, P. sol
United States" in the constitution and laws OF the United
States how the rights of such citizenship may be acquired
and how lost has not been fully determined either by
legislation adjudication. think, however that most
OF the elements of the question easy be dscerned
and Of indubitable effect in its solution
To begin: to distinguish between natural born
citizens and citizens by naturalization. Thus the const
tuition declares that mo person except naturaborn cit
izen, citizen of the United States the adoption of
the constitution shall be eligible to the office of President
of the United States" Art. H. IL alec provides
that Congress shall have power to establish uniform
rule of naturalization" Art 81 Here is the first
great line of distinction then citizens born such and cti
made such by naturalization
Who then are "natura-born" citizens OF the United
States2
The word citzen" has relative applications which mod
ify its actual sense in given
Thus speak Of the citizen of city distinguished
from that of State, and of State distinguished from
that of the United States
In its highest political it signifies in public
law, the persons who constitute the political society
(Wof, JUS Natu tour viii cap see 6, Vatel Drot
des Gems, Hv. i, ch. l9)
But the appeation is not confined persons enjoying
the right of suffrage woman, minor, person tempo
rarily incapaetated by paupersm crime is citizen in
the sense of the present inquiry that is to say dstin
guished from alien other person not constituting
elemental part OF the sovereign people, the body polite of
the United States.-(Hobbes De Give, cap VS. 2.
The truth OF this position is made evident by looking at
the question of eschea of passports and other forms of
public protection of ownership of vessels and of many
alogous in which citizenship in the United States
Independent of the consideration of electoral capacity
On the other hand, person may be elector with
out being a citizen We shall have occasion to speak
particularly hereafter Of great classes of persons who
joy by statute or constitution, the right Of suffrage in
given State without being declared citizens of the State
by such statute constitution and certainly without be-
ing citizens of the United States.
Considering the term Gctzen" in whatever sense the
first subqueson is whether the fact of person be-
ing born in the United States constitutes citizen thereof
Clearly not persons may be born abroad of citizens in
the public service for instanc and be naturaborn ct-
zens Of the United States: they may be born here of
aliens in the service of their government for instance
and not be naturaborn citizens Of the United States
1t is mistake to suppose that alien opposed TO citizen
implies foreigner respects the country.
The fact therefore that Indians born in the country
does not make them citizens Of the United States
The simple truth plain that the Indians the subjects
Of the United States and therefore not in mere right
of homebrth citizens Of the United States The two
dtons are Incompatible The moment ii comes to be
that the Indians domestic subjects Of this government
that moment 1t is clear to the perception that they
the sovereign constituent ingredients of the government
This distinction between citizens proper that is the con-
stituent members Of the political sovereignty and subjects
OF that sovereignty who are not therefore citizens recog
missed in the best authorities of public law. (See Pufen.
dorf De Jure NaturG lib vii, cap, ii, sl
For the same reason slave 1t is clear cannot be ci
zen.
The point respects the Indiansnamey that they
not peno jire citzens-has been udicialy decided in
several of the States New York. Dole rish Barbours
r. p, $50; Hastings Farmer iv Comstock, p, 293
Jackson Ts Wood vii Johns, 290 South Carolina, the
State Managers Of Elections for York. Bail ais Ten
nessce the State as. Ross vii Yerg 74.)
Not being citizens Of the United States by mere birth
can they become so by Naturalization z Undoubtedly
But they cannot become citizens by naturalization under
existing general acts Of Congress H Kents Conn., p.
Those acts apply only TO Jorcgnes subjects Of another
allegiance The Indians not Foreigners and they
in allegiance without being citizens Of the United
States. Moreover those acts only apply TO white men
Persons not citizens Of the United States II has been ad-
judged be made such by any Of one of the States
lChirae pS Chrae H. Wheat 259; Houston Moore
Wheat l)
Indians Of course be made citizens of the United
States only by competent act Of the general govern
ment either treaty act of Congress.
or this we have examples. Thus the act of March 3,
lS43 provides that upon certain things happening be-
ing performed the Stockbdge tribe Of Indians and each
and every OF them, shall then be deemed to be, and
". Stat at Large p 647) By this act the Stookbrdge
Indians nnturalzed qdsse and thus became ndu
rallied citizens of the United States
So by of the stipuations Of the treaty of Dancing
Rabbit Greek provision Is made according which Choc-
taws may become citizens Of the United States Art
XIV
SO IL is probable that by the operation Of the spua-
tons Of the treaty Of Guadalupe Hdago many reduced
emancpated Indians have become citizens Of the United
States although inferior In capacity for such citizenship
the Cherokees and Choctaws
In fine no person Of race Of Indians s citizen Of The
United States by right Of local birth 1t inCspacity
Of his race.
the members OF family Of Indians by continual crossing
Of blood, cease to be Indians2 Undoubtedly.
In the organic other legislation Of the United States
and Of many OF the States the expression whe man s
frequently used in contradistinction from 1ndians IL s
very loose and vague expression obviously. When APP
piled Of the unmixed blood of race-hat
Is OF certain family of the nations OF Europe and Asia
understand IL sufficiently we'll for all practical pur-
poses (See United States Rogers iv Howard, 567
But when questions OF rIed blood arise ii appears at
that there is intrinsic precision in the expression
"whte man. There exist In various parts of the United
States Of indubitable ctzenshpnay, of the highest
mental political and social emnence who have aboriginal
a. a. -