ther made a state citizen or not, all the privileges of state citizenship may be given an alien.

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. S., 649), decided in 1898, was determined the question whether, under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, one is a citizen of the United States who is born in the United States of alien parents permanently domiciled therein. The determination of this point turned upon the question whether or not American law follows the English Common Law principle that birth within the territorial limits of a State makes one a citizen of that State, or accepts the rule followed by most European States that citizenship is determined by that of the parents. The Supreme Court declared that the first is the correct American principle and that, therefore, the Chinaman, defendant in the suit being decided, was an American citizen. The acceptance of this doctrine, it was held, does not prevent the United States from providing that children born abroad of American citizens shall be considered citizens of the United States.1

Regarding the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction 1 "Persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States." Law enacted in 1855. "Revised Statutes," Sec. 1993. The acceptance by some nations of parentage and by others of place of birth as determinant of citizenship, as also the assertion by some nations and the denial by others as of a right of expatriation, gives rise in many cases to a double citizenship. Thus, for example, the child born in the

thereof" the court said: "The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,-children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State,-both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

United States of citizens of a State that holds that the citizenship of the child is fixed by that of its parents, is claimed as a - citizen both by the United States and by the foreign State whose citizens the parents are. A similar result follows when by naturalization American citizenship is conferred upon the subject of a foreign State that does concede to its subjects the right of expatriation.

CHAPTER XVI

THE POLITICAL STATUS OF INDIANS

THE status of the Indians, to which allusion is made in the foregoing quotation, needs explanation, not only because of its peculiar character, but because the constitutional principles that have been declared to govern the Federal Government in its control of these aborigines may find an application in the near future in the government by the United States of the less. civilized tribes inhabiting its newly acquired insular possessions.

The only references made by the Constitution to the Indians are in the provisions that "Indians not taxed" shall not be counted in determining the number of Representatives to which a State shall be entitled (Art. I, Sec. 2); and that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 3).

Since the adoption of the present Constitution, Indians, resident within the boundaries of the United States, while considered as absolutely and exclusively subject to its sovereignty so far as concerns both foreign powers and the individual States of the Union, have nevertheless been treated for many purposes as constituting independent nations or tribes under the

protection of the Federal Government, and therefore to be dealt with by means of treaties rather than by statutes.1 Until recently they have been allowed to govern themselves in most matters by their own tribal governments.

In Worcester v. Georgia (6 Pet., 515), decided in 1832, Chief Justice Marshall said: "The treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that of the States, and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the Union." Speaking of the Indians over whose lands the State of Georgia had attempted to exercise jurisdiction, he said: "The Cherokee Nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States."

In 1884 in the case of Elk v. Wilkins (112 U. S., 94) the question arose whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, became a citizen of the United States under the Four

1 In its control of the Indians, whether by means of statutes or treaties, Congress has never been held bound by any of the limiting clauses of the Constitution.

2 These lands were within the territorial limits of the State of Georgia.

teenth Amendment, by reason of his birth within the United States, and of his afterward voluntarily separating himself from his tribe and taking up a residence among white citizens. In declaring that he did not, the Court said:

"Under the Constitution of the United States, as originally established, 'Indians not taxed' were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives and direct taxes were apportioned among the several States; and Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, whether within or without the boundaries of one of the States of the Union. The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States. might and did deal as they saw fit, either through treaties made by the President and Senate, or through acts of Congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes and were not part of the people of the United States. They were in a dependent condition, a state of pupilage, resembling that of a ward to his guardian. Indians and their property, exempt from taxation by treaty or statute of the United States, could not be taxed by any State. General acts of Congress did not apply to Indians, unless so expressed as clearly to manifest an intention to include them. . . . The alien and dependent condition of the members of the Indian tribes could not be put off at their own will, without the action of, or assent of the