The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-03-18

| the receipt of your letter of the 9th
! instant lncloSIng extracts from a com
munIcauon from Mr.. r. N. Smith il. con-
cernlHg the alleged habitual encroachment
! of the agents of the Hudson Bay Com
pany upon the tra,ie and Territory of
Alaska. with q request for my views upon
! the subject.
By the sixth article Of our treaty
I with Russia of March So 1867, the Cessiou
! OF the territory and domain therein made
! IS declared to be free and Gnincumbered
/ es. grants or possessions by any associat-
/ ed companles whether corporate or inc0r-
{ porate, Russian or any other. or by any
| parties except merely private Individual
property holders.
e Article ; of the treaty between Great
Britain and Russia, Of February Is 1925
"a HertSietS Treaties, 364} which was re
Yived and continued by the seventeenth
article Of the treaty between the same
1859, provides that no establishment
shall be formed by either Of the TWO par
ties within the limits assigned by the two
preceding articles TO the possessions of
the other; consequently British subjects
shall not form any eSta hliShmenU within
the limits OF the Russian possessions
The article referred 70 established the
boundary lines between the British and
Russian possessions on the northN est
/ coast OF America. the same adopted IN
! our l--rty Of cession nth Russia
/ " The provisions above cited are con
/ elusive against the right Of the Hudson
Bay Company TO esta blSh or maintain
]
! described 10 be in the communication OF
/ Mr. F NJ Smith. jr.
| e. I understand the decision OF the SD
| preme Court OF the United States n the
case OF Harrison vs. Cross G6 Howard.
/ l6f-2V2t TO declare its opinion that upon
! the addition 10 the United States OF new
! territory by conquest and cession the acts
/ regulating foreign commerce attach to
/ and take effect within such territory ipso
! facto. and without any fresh act Of leg
| lslation expressly giving such extension
TO- mr. fETT9 Ia rz-r~-
I son for discrimination in this respect be
tween acts regulating foreign commerce
and the laws regulating intercourse with
the lndlan tribes There Is indeed,
strong analogy in the two subjects.
| g The Indians, If not foreigners, are not
! citizens. and their tribes have the char
| acteT Of dependent nations under the pro
lection Of this GOV>-L~EQent AS Chief
| Justice Marshall remarks. ..rs.. eTiGfg the
opinion Of the Supreme Court IN WOr-
ceSter rs The State Of Georgia IS Peters,
55D. the treaties and laws Of the United
! States contemplate TIE Indian Territory
| as completely separated from that Of the
! States and provide that ali intercourse
with them shall be carried on exclusively
by the Government Of the Union The
same clause OF the Constitution invests
Congress with power TO regulate com
| merce with foreign nations and
| with the Indian tribes"
= The act OF June 80. 1894 q Stat. I2s)
defines the Indian country as in fact all
| that part Of the United States west Of
! the Mississippi and not within the States
! OF Missouri and Louisiana or The Terri
tory OF Arkansas This, by happy elias
ITCHY OF expression. WIDENING as our do
| main Widens, includes the territory ceded
| by Russia That act provides that no
! person shall trade with any Of the In
| dams dn the Indian country without Ii
ceuses that any person other than an In
| dian who shall attempt TO reside IN the
! 1uulan country as a trader, or 10 intro
! duce goods or to trade therein without
said license shall forfeit all merchandise
offered for sale 70 the Indians or found
! IN his possession and shall, moreover.
forfeit TIE sum OF $500 that ne license 10
| trade with the Indians shall be granted
| TO any person except citizens OF the nit
/ ed States; that q foreigner going into the
| the " ar Department, the Superintendent
/ OF Agent OF Indian Affairs. the officer
| commanding the nearest military post on
! the frontiers, shall lie liable TO d fine Of
/ $1,000, finally, that the Superintendent OF
/ Indian Affairs and indian agents or sub
! agents shall have authority 10 remove
| from the Indian country ali persons
/ found therein CONTRARY TO law ana the
! President Is authorized 20 direct the mil
tary force 70 be employed in such re
| moyal
! Sc These provisions seem to be ali that
| can be necessary in the way Of legisla-
| ton 70 prevent the encroacnments Of the
! Hudson. Bay Company alleged by Mr..
| F. NJ Smith r.
| 80 OF the practical difficulties in the ex-
| ecutton of these provisions YOU have bet
! ter means OF judging than his Depart
| ment-
| &c / have the honor to be, sir your obeG-
lent servant
WILLIAM H SEWARD.
a Hon. J. NJ. SCHOFIELD,
! Secretary Of State
Tt should be remembered that the Ia
! menJed and distinguished William NJ
| EVarts was at this time GS69D the legal
| adviser OF the Observation-Disclosures is
| the Attorney General Of the United
| States-aHd i Is supposed he was adVis-
! co with before this opinion was issued.
| There are two Alaskan cases in point
| Nelson rs. United States (Z9 Fed. Rep,
| whore the Constitution was held TO apply
! and protect the people In their fundamen-
| tai rights. and the Indian Slave Case 81
! Fed. Rep-) who was given his liberty I'm
| der habeaS corpus proceedings. Or, to
| state II still more strongly, in the words
Of Justice Curtis, IN the case Of United
| States vs. Morris, reported IN Great Opia-
| ions by Great Judges
| Nothing can be clearer than the in
| tention TO have the Constitution, laws
] md trearies Of the L-nitad S1aLes in en-L.-L