that State had no right to enter but with the assent of Chap. II. the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the Acts of Congress (y). $38a. Indians. More recent cases have established that the Indians residing within Present status the limits of the United States are subject to their authority and form of the a dependent political community. The Federal power can govern Indians by Act of Congress, the States having no control so long as Indians retain their tribal organization, and do not separate themselves from their tribe (z). An Act of Congress of the year 1872 declares, that "no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognised as an independent nation, tribe, or power, with whom the United States may contract by treaty; but no obligation of any treaty lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe prior to March 3rd, 1871, shall be hereby invalidated or impaired "(a). The Indians are, however, protected in the territories retained by them. Thus, every person who makes a settlement on any lands secured or granted by treaty with the United States to any Indian tribe, is liable to a penalty of 1,000 dollars (b). No one but an Indian may trade in their territory without a licence (c), and even hunting there is prohibited (d). For purposes, also, of private international law, American Courts regard Indians, and white men naturalised within an Indian tribe, residing on Indian reserves, as members of alien nationalities (e). $38b. certain Corea was regarded by the Chinese government until quite recently Relations of as a vassal kingdom of that empire, though the claim was from time China and to time repudiated by the Corean king. On the outbreak of the Chino- Asiatic Japanese war in 1894, Corea renounced the Chinese suzerainty, and in kingdoms. January, 1895, formally declared herself independent. In October, 1897, the king of Corea proclaimed himself emperor (f). By the treaty of 9th June, 1885, between France and China, the foreign intercourse of Annam was to be through France, but the question of Chinese suzerainty was left unsettled (g). By the Anglo-Chinese (y) Kent's Comment. on American Law, vol. iii. p. 383 (12th ed.). (2) U. S. v. Rogers, 4 Howard, 572; Mackey v. Coxe, 18 Howard, 104; Holden v. Joy, 17 Wallace, 211; U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wallace, 407; Abbott's National Digest, vol. iii. tit. Indians; Crow Dog, In re, 109 U. S. 556; The Cherokee Trust Funds, ubi supra; U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375; The Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Rail. Co., 135 U. S. 641; Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 372. (a) U. S. Revised Statutes, Title xxviii. Indians, ch. 2, sect. 2079. W. (b) Ibid. ch. iii. sect. 2118; Worcester v. State of Georgia, 6 Peters, 515; Clark V. Smith, 13 Peters, 195; Latimer v. Poteet, 14 Peters, 4; U. S. v. Joseph, 4 Otto, 614. (c) Ibid. ch. iv. sect. 2133. (d) Ibid. sect. 2137. See also the cases of Holden v. Joy, 17 Wallace, 211; U. S. v. Cook, 19 Wallace, 591; Wharton, Dig. 208; Calvo, Bk. II. § 69. (e) Wharton, loc. cit.; Nafire v. U. S., (ƒ) Annual Register, 1895, 1897. F Part I. 38c. Status of the Indian of Cuba. Convention, signed at Pekin on the 24th July, 1886, England agrees that the highest authority in Burmah shall send to Pekin the customary decennial missions to present articles of local produce, the members of the mission to be of Burmese race; but China agrees, that in all matters whatsoever appertaining to the authority and rule which England is now exercising in Burmah, England shall be free to do whatever she deems fit and proper (h). The Chinese claim to suzerainty in Tibet is fully recognised by Great Britain in the convention for carrying out the frontier delimitation of that country (i). In British India there are more than 600 Native States, whose rulers are known as Protected Princes. Of their precise relations to the Princes; and suzerain power it is not easy to give a satisfactory definition, nor are they regulated by any uniform code of rules. The Protected Princes are strictly precluded from forming any connection or engagement either among themselves or with foreign powers. In the words of Sir William Lee Warner, "They cannot enter into a treaty of extradition with their neighbours without the intervention of the British authority; they cannot receive commercial agents; they are even unable to allow Europeans or Americans to enter their service without the consent of the paramount power; they have no direct intercourse with the consular agents or representatives of foreign nations accredited to the government of India; and they cannot receive from foreign sovereigns decorations or orders except under the regulations prescribed for British subjects." But they are not subject to legislation by the Governor-General in Council or by the Legislative Councils of the Presidency in which they are situated, nor is the law of British India administered within their borders. They enjoy and exercise under the sanction of the British government the functions and attributes of internal sovereignty, but they are bound to receive the Resident or Agent appointed by the Viceroy. The Indian government has formally declared that the principles of international law have no bearing upon the relations between itself and the Native States under the suzerainty of the king. Whether this declaration is rigidly correct or is completely followed in practice may perhaps be doubted, but it is clear that the Native Princes of India have no international status in the sense in which it is used in this volume (k). Since the treaty of June 12, 1901, by which Cuba was made over to the Cuban people, it has occupied a position with respect to the United States which seems to bring it within the category of Protected States, though differing entirely from those described in the last paragraph. It is precluded from entering into any treaty with a foreign power which can endanger its independence; and it undertakes to contract no debt for (h) Hertslet, Com. Treaties, xviii. p. 299; and see ibid. xix. 163, xx. 233. (i) Ibid. xviii. 288. (k) See Lee Warner, "Protected Princes of India"; the quotation in the text is at p. 245; Professor Westlake, "Chapters on the Principles of International Law"; Notification published by the Government of India, Aug. 21, 1891. which the current revenue will not suffice, and to concede to the United Chap. II. States the right of intervention and the use of its harbours as naval stations (1). $39. united States. States may be either single, or may be united together Single or under a common sovereign prince, or by a federal compact. $ 40. union under sovereign. 1. If this union under a common sovereign is not an Personal incorporate union, that is to say, if it is only personal the same in the reigning sovereign; or even if it is real, yet if the different component parts are united with a perfect equality of rights, the sovereignty of each State remains unimpaired (m). Thus, the kingdom of Hanover was formerly held by the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, separately from his insular dominions. Hanover and the United Kingdom were subject to the same prince, without any dependence on each other, both kingdoms retaining their respective national rights of sovereignty. It was thus that the king of Prussia was also sovereign prince of Neufchatel, one of the Swiss Cantons; which did not, on that account, cease to maintain its relations with the Confederation, nor was it united with the Prussian monarchy (n). So, also, the kingdoms of Sweden and Norway are united under one crowned head, each kingdom retaining its separate constitution, laws, and civil administration, the external sovereignty of each being represented by the king. $ 41. under the same sovereign. The union of the different States composing the Real union Austrian monarchy is a real union. The hereditary dominions of the House of Austria, the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia, the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, and other States, are all indissolubly united under (7) Annual Register, 1901; fifty-sixth Congress, c. 803; Statutes at Large, vol. xxxi. p. 897. (m) Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac. lib. ii. cap. 9, §§ 8, 9. Klüber, Droit des Gens moderne de l'Europe, Part I. cap. 1, § 27. Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht, § 20. (n) This sovereignty was renounced by the King of Prussia in 1857, and Neufchatel has since formed part of the Swiss Confederation, on the same footing as the other cantons. See Hertslet, Map of Europe, vol. ii. p. 1317. Part I. the same sceptre, but with distinct fundamental laws, and other political institutions. $ 41a. Constitution of the AustroHungarian monarchy. It appears to be an intelligible distinction between such a union as that of the Austrian States, and all other unions which are merely personal under the same crowned head, that, in the case of a real union, though the separate sovereignty of each State may still subsist internally, in respect to its co-ordinate States, and in respect to the imperial crown; yet the sovereignty of each is merged in the general sovereignty of the empire, as to their international relations with foreign powers. The political unity of the States which compose the Austrian Empire forms what the German publicists call a community of States (Gesammtstaat); a community which reposes on historical antecedents. It is connected with the natural progress of things, in the same way as the empire was formed, by an agglomeration of various nationalities, which defended, as long as possible, their ancient constitutions, and only yielded, finally, to the overwhelming influence of superior force. Since the year 1867, the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, as it is now called, forms a bipartite State, consisting of a German, or "Cisleithan" monarchy, and a Magyar, or "Transleithan" kingdom, the former officially designated as Austria, and the latter as Hungary. Each of the two countries has its own parliament, ministers, and government, while the connecting ties between them are comprised in the person of the hereditary sovereign, in a common army, navy, and diplomacy, and in a controlling body known as the delegations. The delegations form a parliament of 120 members, one-half of whom are chosen by, and represent, the legislature of Austria, and the other half that of Hungary, the Upper House of each returning 20, and the Lower House 40 delegates. On subjects affecting the common affairs, the delegations have a decisive vote, and their resolutions require neither the confirmation nor the approbation of the representative assemblies in which they have their source. The jurisdiction of the delegations is limited to foreign affairs and war and the finance involved therein, and their final vote on these points is binding upon the whole empire. A commercial union also subsists between the two countries, which has, however, to be renewed every ten years and is dependent on identical acts of the two legislatures (o). (0) The Statesman's Year Book, 1903. Martin. Tit. Austria-Hungary. And see The Austro-Hungarian Empire. Baron de Worms (1877). § 42. Incorporate $ 43. between 2. An incorporate union is such as that which subsists Chap. II. between Scotland and England, and between Great Britain and Ireland; forming out of the three kingdoms union. an empire, united under one crown and one legislature, although each may have distinct laws and a separate administration. The sovereignty, internal and external, of each original kingdom is completely merged in the United Kingdom, thus formed by their successive unions. 3. The union established by the Congress of Vienna, Union between the empire of Russia and the kingdom of Russia and Poland, is of a more anomalous character. By the final Poland. act of the congress, the duchy of Warsaw, with the exception of the provinces and districts otherwise disposed of, was reunited to the Russian Empire; and it was stipulated that it should be irrevocably connected with that empire by its constitution, to be possessed by his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, his heirs and successors in perpetuity, with the title of King of Poland; his Majesty reserving the right to give to this State, enjoying a distinct administration, such interior extension as he should judge proper; and that the Poles, subject respectively to Russia, Austria, and Prussia, should obtain a representation and national institutions, regulated according to that mode of political existence which each government, to whom they belong, should think useful and proper to grant (p). accorded by Alexander to of Poland, in 1815. In pursuance of these stipulations, the Emperor Charter Alexander granted a constitutional charter to the kingdom the Emperor of Poland, on 15th (27th) November, 1815. By the the kingdom provisions of this charter, the kingdom of Poland was 1815. declared to be united to the Russian Empire by its constitution; the sovereign authority in Poland was to be exercised only in conformity to it; the coronation of the King of Poland was to take place in the Polish capital, where he was bound to take an oath to observe the charter. The Polish nation was to have a perpetual representation, composed of the king and the two cham (p) Hertslet, Map of Europe, vol. i. P. 216. |