to accomplish this object they must be relieved from every species of levy, sale, and forfeiture-from a levy and sale for taxes, as well as the ordinary judicial levy and sale.' The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 760, 761. Again the Courts say, in reference to the tribal association of the Shawnees, that they are a people distinct from others, capable of making treaties, separated from the jurisdiction of Kansas, and to be governed exclusively by the government of the Union. If under the control of Congress, from necessity, there can be no divided authority.-If they have outlived many things they have not outlived the protection afforded by the Constitution, treaties, and laws of Congress.-It may be that they cannot exist much longer as a distinct people in the presence of the civilization of Kansas; but until they are clothed with the rights and bound to all the duties of citizens, they enjoy the privilege of total immunity from State taxation.' (Id. 755, 756). And again: As long as the United States recognizes their nacional character they are under the protection of the treaties and the laws of Congress, and their property is withdrawn from the operation of State laws.' (Id. 757.) Such is the well-established policy of the United States with regard to the total exemption of the Indian tribes from State taxation. The tenor of all the treaties shows that the idea of subjecting them to taxation by the General Government, was never entertained, and certainly hitherto it has never been attempted. I am, therefore, clearly of opinion that the particular cotton in question was not liable to taxation under our Internal revenue laws, either while in the Indian country or in transit through any collection district of the United States, or in the collection district where it may have been found or may have been sold. Until the Indians have sold their lands, and removed from them in pursuance of the treaty stipulations, they are to be regarded as still in their ancient possessions, and are in under their original rights, and entitled to the undisturbed enjoyment of them. (Fellows v. Blacksmith, 19 How. 366.) The New York Indians, 5 Wall, 770."

In the argument of the case of R. M. Jones before the AttorneyGeneral, the Editor, who prosecuted the claim to have the tax, illegally collected, refunded, cited the following authorities: The State v. Ross, 7 Yerg. 74; United States v. Cisna, 1 McLean, 254; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia; Worcester v. Georgia; and Johnson v. McIntosh, cited elsewhere in this note. And the following cases to show that while Indians reside within the States as portions of tribes, they are not within State jurisdiction, as citizens subject to the burdens and benefits of State laws: Danforth v. Wear, 9 Wheat. 673; Lee v. Glover, 8 Cow. 189; Strong v. Waterman, 11 Paige, 807; Harmon v. Partier, 12 Sm. & Marsh. 425; Marsh v. Brooks, 8 How. 223; Fellows v. Lee, 3 Denio 628; Wall v. Williams, 8 Ala. 48 and 11 Ala. 826; Brashear v. Williamson, 10 Ala. 630; Parks v. Ross, 11 How. 427; Jones v. Laney, 2 Tex. 342. And as to the power of the United States over the Indian country, See United States v. Rogers, 4 Howard, 567.

What are the relations of

92. These various authorities settle the general propositions: the Indian 1. That the Indian tribes are dependent subordinate States, tribes?

81.

What as to naturaliza

whose political relations with the United States are defined by treaties.

66

2. That 'commerce with the Indian tribes" is subject to the exclusive control of Congress, and it has only been regulated by treaties and intercourse laws.

3. That Indians are not embraced by acts of Congress, unless they be named therein. Opinion of Judge Lewis, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1863.

And see 9 Op. 27. The Indians owe no allegiance to the United States. They may make war upon them without incurring the guilt of treason. Op. of Judge Lewis, Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 66 Though he holds his lands within the limits of the United States, he is not politically within its limits, nor has it jurisdiction over him." Judge Lewis. The stamp tax does not apply to the Indian reservations, when sold by the tribe; nor does any part of the laws in relation to Internal Revenue. Id. The court follows the executive as to the recognition of the tribal relations. Id. Cites The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Peters, 1, and Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Peters, 515.

[4.] To establish a uniform rule of naturalization; tion? and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies Bankruptcy? throughout the United States.

What is nat

209.

patriation?

274.

93. NATURALIZATION.--In its popular, etymological, and legal uralization? sense, signifies the act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with all the privileges of a native citizen or subject. 9 Op. 359; Coke Litt. 199a; 1 Bl. Com. 374; 2 Kent's Com. 64-67. These laws are based upon the acknowledged principle of expatriation. Bates 17, 18, 205, on Citizenship, 13. A naturalized citizen becomes a member of society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing What is ex- on the footing of a native. The power is to prescribe a "uniform rule," and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, &c. Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wh. 827. Expatriation includes not only emigration out of one's native country, but naturalization in 220, 221, 222. the country adopted as a future residence. 9 Op. 359; 8 Op. 125; Paschal's Annotated Digest, p. 920, note 1168, where the authorities are collected; Halleck's International Law 696; Rawle's Const. 95-101; Sergeant's Const. ch. 28, 30; 2 Kent's Com. 35, 42. The naturalized foreigner is protected against the conscript laws of his native sovereign. Ernest's Case, 9th Op. 357-363. The power to Is the power naturalize is exclusive in the Federal government. The Federalist, exclusive? No. 32, 42; Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, 269; Rawle's Const. 84-88; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 48, 49; Golden v. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 313, 332; 1 Kent's Com. 397.) Story's Const. § 1104; Thurlow v. Massachusetts, 5 How. 505; Smith v. Turner, 7 How. 556. The power must be exclusive or there could be no Where alone " UNIFORM RULE." (Federalist, No. 32;) Story's Const. 1104. is the power While the Constitution gave to the citizens of each State the

of naturali

zation?

120-123.

privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, it, at the same time, took from the several States the power of naturali

90.

And Negroes.

274.

209.

zation, and confined that power exclusively to the Federal government. The right of naturalization was, therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confined to the Federal government. Golden v. Prince, 3 Wash. c. c. 314. Naturalization is confined to persons born in foreign countries. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 417419. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to 220, 17, 18. establish uniform rules of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive. Id. 405. Negroes cannot be naturalized. Id. no law of a State, passed since the Constitution was adopted, can give any right of citizenship outside of its own territory. Id. The naturalization law of 1790, only extended the privilege "to aliens being free white persons." Id. Citizenship at that time was perfectly understood to be confined to the white race. Id. Congress might have authorized the naturalization of Indians, because they Indians. were aliens and foreigners. Id. 420. For the latest collection of the naturalization laws and notes thereon, see Paschal's Anno- 91, 92, 220. tated Digest, arts. 5392-5412; notes 1168-1172, and 148-150. A free white person born in this country, of foreign parents, is a citizen of the United States. (Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandford's Ch. R. 583.) 9 Op. 374. This is a universal principle unless changed by statute, as in our own statute to prevent the alienage of children born abroad. 10 St. 604. Bates on Citizenship, 13.

Allegiance on the one side, and protection on the other, con- Who are citstitute citizenship under the Constitution. Smith v. Moody, 26 izens? Inda. 305. Allegiance and protection constitute the sum of the 220-223. duties and rights of "natural born citizen of the United States." What are the Bates on Citizenship, 15. Citizenship cannot depend on color or caste. Id. 14-17. Alienage is the only disability to citizenship recognized in the Constitution. Id.

duties of a citizen?

95.

94. UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY.-BANKRUPT [banke- What is a rout]. Literally from Law French banke, Lat. bancus, a bench, bankrupt? table, or counter, and roupt or rout, Latin ruptus, broken. One whose bench or counter (place of business) is broken up. In English law, a trader who secretes himself, or does certain other acts tending to defraud his creditors. 2 Bl. Com. 285, 471; Burrill's Law Dic. BANKRUPT; 4 Inst. Ch. 63; Story's Const. § 1112; Cooke's Bankrupt Laws, Intr. 1. It is derived from the Roman law. Idem. See Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 264-270; Sturgis v. Crowninshield, 12 Wheat. 273, 275, 280, 306, 310, 314, 335, 369; and same case 4 Wheat. 122. By the American law, bankrupts and bankruptcies are not confined to traders. See Acts of April 4, 1800; December 19, 1803; Aug. 19, 1841; 2 March, 1867; James's Bankrupt Law, 1867, and notes; Taylor's Bankrupt Law; 2 Kent's Com. 390; 2 Story's Const. §§ 1111-1115; Stephens's Com. 180, 189. The leading features of "a system established by law, as distinguished from ordinary law are, (1), the summary and immediate seizure of all the debtor's property (or the voluntary surrender of it); (2), the distribution of it among the creditors in general; and (3), the discharge of the debtor from future liability from debts then existing." Archbold's Law and P. of Bankruptcy (11th ed. b. 2, pp. 139, 235-237; 2 Burr. 829. The American "SYSTEM" seems to have broken down the distinction between

What is

94.

BANKRUPTCY" and insolvency. Burrill's Law Dic., BANKRUPT. Sturgis v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 194, 198, 203; 2 Kent's Com. 321.

95. BANKRUPTCY.-The act, state, or condition of a bankrupt. bankruptcy? A status or condition fixed by legislative provision. (2 Bell's Com. 214.) A condition following upon the commission of certain acts defined by law. (2 Stephens's Com. 191, 192; Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How. 111. "A breaking up of the bank." Spencer v. Billing, 3 Camp. 312.) In a looser sense, the stopping and breaking up of business, because a man is insolvent, and utterly incapable of carrying it on. (Arnold v. Maynard, 2 Story's R. 354, 359. See Sturgis v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 195, 202). Burrill's Law Dic. BANKRUPTCY. The state of a man unable to pursue his business, and meet his engagements, in consequence of the derangement of his affairs. Crabbe's Rep. 456, 465. See Paschal's Annotated Digest, BANKRUPTCY, note 278, p. 141.

What right have the States to pass bank

96. The States have authority to pass bankrupt laws, provided they do not impair the obligation of contracts, and provided there be no act of Congress in force to establish a uniform system of bankrupt laws? ruptcy conflicting with such laws. Sturgis v. Crowninshield, 4 Wh. 132, 273, 275, 280, 306, 314, 335, 369; McMillan v. McNeil, Id. 209. But an act of a State legislature which discharges a debtor from all liability for debts contracted previous to his discharge, on his surrendering his property for the benefit of his creditors, is invalid, so far as it attempts to discharge, on the contracts with his creditors in other States than his residence. Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Smith, 6 Wh. 131. A mere insolvent law, however, is not within the prohibition. Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, Mason v. Haile, Id. 370; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 348, 635; Beers v. Houghton, 8 Id. 329; Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Id. 67; Cook v. Moffat, 5 How far do How. 295. The State bankrupt laws do not discharge debts constate bank tracted to citizens of other States, unless the contract be payable rupt laws discharge within the state of the bankrupt. Beers v. Rhea, 5 Tex. 354. This debts? opinion reviews the various decisions of the supreme court of the United States upon the subject, and concurs with their judgments, though it is urged that the opinions have been inconsistent. See Story's Conflict of Laws, § 338-423. The reason of this power is to prevent frauds where the parties or their property may be removed into different States. (The Federalist, No. 32.) Story's Const. § 1105.

Money.

The Bankrupt Law of 1841 was held to be constitutional. Klein's Case, 1 How. 277. The power of Congress is not an exclusive grant; it may, therefore, be exercised within constitutional limits by the States. Sturgis v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122. See James's Bankrupt Law, p. 8. This book gives the Bankrupt Law of 1867, annotated.

[5.] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin; and fix the standard of weights and

measures.

97. TO COIN.-To stamp and convert into money, as a piece of What is metal; to mint; in a more general sense, to form by stamping; as, coin? to coin a medal. 2. To make or fabricate; to invent; to originate; as, to coin a word. Webster's Dic., COIN.

82-84.

155.

"To COIN MONEY," clearly means to mould into form a metallic What to substance of intrinsic value, and stamp on it its legal value. The coin money? thing so coined is itself " money, ipse loquiter; but a treasury note is only a promise to pay money, and at the utmost, can only be, like a bank bill, or a bill of exchange, a representative of money. Griswold v. Hepburn, 2 Duvall's Ky. Rep. 29. The phrase means "to coin metal as the money of the United States" "They intended that nothing else than metallic coin should be money, or be a legal tender, immutum, as money. Id. 33, 34. 'Currency" is not money. Id. 33, 46, 47.

66

The articles of confederation read "To coin money and emit bills of credit." (Ante, Art. IX., p. 17.) The latter words were stricken out of a draft of the present Constitution. Id. The debate given in full. Id. 31,32; Madison papers, 1343-4-5-6; Daniel Webster; United States v. Marigold, 9 How, 567; Craig v. Missouri quoted. Id. 37, 38. And see the dissentient opinions, in the Pennsylvania legal tender cases. 52 Penn. State Reports, 1-100.

72.

A contract may be satisfied by a payment of what is a legal tender at the time the contract is to be performed or the debt falls due, although in depreciated money. (Davies Reports, 48.) 99, 100. Shollenberger v. Brinton, 52 Penn. (2 P. F. Smith), 46. The

constitutionality is maintained in the opinions of a majority of the

judges, from pages 57 to 100.

This clause itself would carry along the right to regulate the value of money. (Madison's Letter to Cabell, 18th Sept., 1828.) Story's Const. 1117.

98. MONEY.-Is the universal medium or common standard, by What is comparison with which the value of all merchandise may be ascer- money? tained; or it is a sign which represents the respective values of all commodities. (1 Black. Com. 276.) Story's Const. § 1118.

83.

Our review of the legislation of Congress has shown us that What is a leCongress has uniformly declared the money so coined, and the gal tender? value of which has thus been regulated, should be received as a legal tender in payment of debts equally, whether due to the 82-84. government or to private individuals, &c. Metropolitan Bank v 99, 100. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 426.

The coin has no pledge of redemption; the intrinsic value is not Has coin a a question; the treasury notes have a pledge for redemption; and pledge of rethey may become a substitute for coin. (Madison's Message.) demption? Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. R. 430, 431.

value ?

99. AND REGULATE THE VALUE.-For a history of the acts How reguregulating the value of money and prescribing legal tenders, see late the Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. Rep. 424. This power is limited to the coining and stamping the standard of value upon what the government creates or shall adopt, and to punishing the offense of producing a false imitation of what may have been so created or adopted. Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 433.

This power is exclusively in Congress. Rawle's Const. 102.

155