the same power that can make treaties with foreign nations can make them with Indians, but the construction of the treaty so made is necessarily subject to those peculiar rela In an action to restrain the cutting of timber on Indian lands reserved under the treaty of 1831 with the Menominee Indians, held that they could use timber sufficient to support themselves and their families, and they must be treated as the owners of the land, although their ownership was subject to the rights of the sovereignty of the United States. The Kansas Indians, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1866, 5 Wallace, 737, DaVIS, J. Held, that rules of interpretation favorable to Indian tribes are to be adopted in construing our treaties with them, hence a provision in an Indian treaty which exempts their lands from levy, sale and forfeiture is not, in the absence of expressions to limit it, to be confined to levy and sale under ordinary judicial proceedings only, but is to be extended to levy and sale by county | officers for non-payment of taxes. Libby vs. Clark, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1886, 118 U. S. 250, MILLER, J. Held, that "the provisions in Article VII of the Treaty of June 24, 1862, with the Ottawa Indians of Blanchard's Fork and Roche de Boeuf, 12 Stat. 1237, limiting the power of alienating granted lands, apply to the grants authorized by Article III of the treaty to be made to chiefs, councilmen, and headmen of the tribe; and deeds made in violation of that limitation (as it was incorporated by the land office into patents for lands allotted to chiefs, councilmen, or headmen), are void." Best vs. Polk, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1873, 18 Wallace, 112, DAVIS, J. The numerous cases citing this case show the way in which treaties with Indians should be construed and also shows the impossibility of dealing with Indians in the same manner as sovereign nations, as the treaties had to be made exactly as the United States was able to handle the property. Bush vs. United States, Ct. Claims, 1894, 29 Ct. Claims, 144, WELDON, J. Godfrey vs. Beardsley, U. S. Cir. Ct. Indiana 1841, 2 McLean, 412, Fed. Cas. 5,497, McLEAN, J. Goodfellow vs. Muckey, U. S. Cir. Ct. Kans. 1881, 1 McCrary, 238 Fed. Cas. 5,537, FOSTER, J. Gray vs. Coffman, U. S. Cir. Ct. Kans. 1874, 3 Dillon, 393, Fed. Cas. 5,714, DILLON, J. Henderson vs. Tenn., U. S. Sup. Ct. 1850, 10 How. 311, TANEY, Ch. J. Ladiga vs. Roland, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1844, 2 Howard, 581, BALDWIN, J. Mann vs. Wilson, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1859, 23 Howard, 457, CATRON, J. Meigs vs. McClung, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1815, 9 Cranch, 11, MARSHALL, Ch. J. See reference under § 460, post. Minter vs. Crommelin, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1855, 18 Howard, 87, CATRON, J. Potawatamie Indians vs. United States, Ct. Claims, 1892, 27 Ct. Claims, 403, WELDON, J. (Affirmed sub nomine Pam-to-pee vs. U. S., U. S. Sup. Ct. 1893, 148 U. S. 691, SHIRAS, J.) Summers vs. Spybuck, Sup. Ct. Kans. 1863, 1 Kan. 394, COBB, Ch. J. United States vs. Alaska Packers' Association, U. S. Cir. Ct. tions which, as was said in Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, exist between the United States and the Indian tribes, and between no other nations in the world. It can readily be seen that the establishment of treaty relations between a sovereign power such as the United States and nations or tribes wholly dependent upon it, occupying territory within its own boundaries, and subject to its jurisdiction, as the Indian tribes are, became a matter of great embarrassment in the administration of national affairs; it became absolutely necessary, therefore, for the United States to place the Indian tribes remaining in this country upon a footing entirely different from that of independent nations. § 416. The Cherokee Nation at present; Imperium in Imperio; other nations. Shortly after the Cherokee-Georgia controversy was settled, the United States Government adopted the policy of transplanting the Indian tribes which were then occupying territory east of the Mississippi to the territory west of that river which had been acquired from France by the Louisiana purchase of 1803. Treaties were made with many of the tribes and nations by which their title to the territory originally claimed by them was extinguished and corresponding reservations were provided for them in what is now Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahama and Indian Territory. From time to time since then other treaties and agreements have been made with these Indians by Washington, 1897, 79 Fed. Rep. 152, United States vs. Brooks, U. S. United States vs. Winans, U. S. Cir. Ct. Washington, S. D., 1896, 73 Fed. Rep. 72, HANDFORD, J. United States vs. Taylor, Sup. Ct. Wash. 1887, 3 Wash. Rep. 88, HOYT, J. Warner vs. Joy, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1872, 17 Wall. 253. CLIFFORD, J. Decided at the same time on the same grounds as Holden vs. Joy, 17 Wall. 211. Western Cherokee Indians vs. United States, U. S. Ct. Claims, 1891, 27 Ct. Claims, 1, NOTT, J. Wilson vs. Wall, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1867, 6 Wall. 83, GRIER, J. See also Wharton's Digest Int. Law, §§ 208 et seq. vol. II. § 415. 1 See § 411, p. 207, ante, and see § 132, vol. I, pp. 232, et seq. $416. 1 For these treaties see the Compilation of Indian Treaties of 1873, published by the Interior Department. which portions of the territory so reserved for them has been repurchased by the United States and thrown open for settlement. Amongst the tribes which were thus removed were the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws and Seminoles, which are now known as the five civilized tribes and with which the Dawes' Commission are now negotiating for a final adjustment for the division of their lands in severalty as has been stated in a previous section.2 Under these treaties of removal the tribes established governments for themselves and their right to self-government has been respected by the United States Government and upheld by the courts so long as the provisions of the treaties were complied with. Within the Indian Territory there exists an Imperium in Imperio, the exact status of which it has been sometimes difficult to determine. The five tribes above re 2 See § 406, pp. 201, et seq., ante. 8 Thebo vs. Choctaw Tribe of Indians, U. S. Cir. Ct. App. 8th Cir. 1895, 66 Fed. Rep. 372, CALDWELL, J. This case is cited at length because it shows to what extent the courts go in protecting these Indian tribes from interference; it was held, as stated in the syllabus: "The United States court in the Indian Territory has no jurisdiction of an action against the Choctaw Nation, or the chief executive officers thereof, when sued in their capacity as such, for an alleged debt or liability of the Nation, and when the judgment will operate against the Nation." the jurisdiction and authority of the United States. Being a domestic and dependent state, the United States may authorize suit to be brought against it. But, for obvious reasons, this power has been sparingly exercised. It has been the settled policy of the United States not to authorize such suits except in a few cases, where the subject-matter of the controversy was particularly specified, and was of such a nature that the public interests, as well as the interests of the Nation, seemed to require the exercise of the jurisdiction. It has been the policy of the United States to place and maintain the Choctaw Nation and the other civilized Indian Nations in the Indian Territory, so far as relates to suits against them, on the plane of independent states. A state, without "While the nation has many of its consent, cannot be sued by an the attributes of the political unit individual. 'It is a well estabwhich constitutes the civil and lished principle of jurisprudence self-governing community called a in all civilized nations that the 'State' or a 'Nation,' it is not a sovereign cannot be sued in its sovereign state, but it is a domes-own courts or any other without tic and dependent state, subject to its consent and permission; but it In reaching this conclusion the court says in regard to the status of the nation as follows (pp. 375376): L ferred to have been mentioned as examples only, for the full list of tribes removed and for the circumstances under which the removals took place the records of the Interior Department must be examined and it would require more space than can be devoted to it in this volume to even give a list of the treaties and the decisions on cases arising thereunder when it has been necessary to construe them. A few decisions on the status of some of the tribes are given in the notes to this section.1 may, if it thinks proper, waive this privilege, and permit itself to be made a defendant in a suit by individuals or by another state.' Beers vs. Arkansas, 20 How. 527. The United States has waived its privilege in this regard, and allowed suits to be brought against it in a few specified cases. Some of the States of the Union have at times claimed no immunity from suits, but experience soon demonstrated this to be an unwise and extremely injurious policy, and most, if not all, of the states after a brief experience, abandoned it, and refused to submit themselves to the coercive process of judicial tribunals. When the Supreme Court of the United States, in Chisholm vs. Geor- | gia, 2 Dall. 419, decided that under the constitution that court had original jurisdiction of a suit by a citizen of one state against another state, the eleventh amendment to the constitution was straightway adopted, taking away this jurisdiction. Since the adoption of this amendment, the contract of a state 'is substantially without sanction, except that which arises out of the honor and good faith of the state itself; and these are not subject to coercion.' In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 505, 8 Sup. Ct. 164. One claiming to be creditor of a state is remitted to the justice of its legis lature. It has been the settled policy of congress not to sanction suits generally against these Indian Nations, or subject them to suits upon contracts or other causes of action at the instance of private parties. In respect to their liability to be sued by individuals, except in the few cases we have mentioned, they have been placed by the United States, substantially, on the plane occupied by the States under the eleventh amendment to the constitution. The civilized Nations in the Indian Territory are probably better guarded against oppression from this source than the states themselves, for the states may consent to be sued, but the United States has never given its permission that these Indian Nations might be sued generally, even with their consent. As rich as the Choctaw Nation is said to be in lands and money, it would soon be impoverished if it was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, and required to respond to all the demands which private parties chose to prefer against it. The intention of congress to confer such a jurisdiction upon any court would have to be expressed in plain and unambiguous terms. The judgment of the United States court in the Indian Territory is affirmed." 4 Cherokee Nation vs. Southern $ 417. Complications arising from treaty method of dealing with Indians; anomalous conditions owing to dependent relations. Anomalous conditions were often created by concluding a treaty with an Indian tribe through Kansas Railway Co., U. S. Sup. Ct. 1890, 135 U. S. 641, HARLAN, J. "The Cherokee Nation is not sovereign in the sense that the United States or a State is sovereign, but is now, as heretofore, a dependent political community, subject to the permanent authority of the United States." The Cherokee Trust Funds, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1885, 117 U. S. 288, FIELD, J. The opinion contains a lengthy history of the Cherokee Nation and its various divisions and migratory movements, and the status of those bands of Indians which did not remove west of the Mississippi with the tribe. Jordan vs. Goldman, Dist. Ct. Okla. 1891, 1 Okla. Rep. 406, GREEN, J. In this case the history of the Cherokee treaties and the effect of subsequent statutes passed by the United States, and the final condition of the Indian title as to what is known as the Cherokee Outlet is considered at length and determined. The entire brief of the United States attorney showing the position assumed by the government is included in the report of the case. Held, that certain tax statutes of the Territory of Oklahoma affecting cattle grazing on Indian Reservations were constitutional and Mehlin vs. Ice, U. S. Cir. Ct. App. | valid. 8th Cir. 1893, 12 U. S. App. 305, United States vs. Wilson, U. S. CALDWELL, J. Status of Cherokee Sup. Ct. 1861, 1 Black, 267, NELIndians stated and defined. SON, J. Porterfield's Executors vs. Clark, In this case a Californian-Mexican U. S. Sup. Ct. 1844, 2 Howard, 76,|land grant to an Indian was conCATRON, J. The boundaries of the Cherokee Indians as fixed by the treaties were historically examined and the nature, limits and effects of various grants. Held, that acts of the State applied to Indian territory so far as the treaties would permit and that upon the extinguishment of Indian titles and grants the laws of States extended over the country. There is an extended history of the relations of the United States, Great Britain and Spain with the Cherokee Indians contained in the opinion. Thomas vs. Gay, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1898, 169 U. S. 264, SHIRAS, J. firmed on account of the usages of the Mexican Government prior to the transaction. Guthrie vs. Hall, Dist. Ct. Oklahoma, 1891, 1 Okla. 454, SEAY, J. Journeycake vs. Cherokee Nation, U. S. Ct. of Claims, 1896, 31 Ct. of Claims, 140, NOTT, J. Journeycake vs. United States, U. S. Ct. of Claims, 1893, 28 Ct. of Claims, 281, NOTT, J. Mackey vs. Coxe, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1855, 18 Howard, 100, MCLEAN, J. Standley vs. Roberts, U. S. Cir. Ct. App. 8 Cir. 1894, 59 Fed. Rep. 836, SANBORN, J. Taltan vs. Mayes, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1896, 163 U. S. 376, WHITE, J. |