The Indian Question

by Francis Amasa Walker

1. As matter of fact, the European powers engaged in the discovery and conquest of the New World left with the Indian tribes the regulation of their own domestic concerns, while claiming the sovereignty of the soil occupied by them. The Indian tribes thus continued to act as separate political communities.[O]

2. The Constitution of the United States excludes from the basis of Congressional representation "Indians not taxed," without further defining the same.

3. The Congress of the United States has, with a few recent exceptions, treated Indians in tribal relations as without the municipal jurisdiction of the United States.

4. The Senate of the United States has confirmed nearly four hundred treaties, negotiated by the executive, under the general treaty-making powers conferred by the Constitution, with tribes which embrace about three-fifths of the present Indian population of the United States. The House of Representatives has, from the foundation of the government, as occasion required, originated bills for the appropriation of moneys to carry out the provisions of such treaties.

This comprises all that is essential in this connection. The indicia gathered from particular acts of the government, or from the phraseology of individual treaties, really add nothing to the above.

We believe the following propositions to be consistent with the facts of history and with the latest judicial decisions.

1. The exclusion by the Constitution of "Indians not taxed" from the basis of representation was in no sense a guaranty to the Indian tribes of their political autonomy, but was a provision in the interest of an equitable apportionment of political power among the States, some States having many Indians within their limits, others few or none.

2. The self-government enjoyed by the Indian tribes under the Constitution of the United States, as under the European powers, has always been a government by sufferance, by toleration, by permission. The United States, for their own convenience, have allowed this self-government, because to reduce the savages to the condition of submitting to civilized laws would have involved a great expense of blood and treasure; while through the tribal organization a much better government, for the purposes of the civilized power if not for the welfare of the Indians themselves, could be obtained, than through an administration which should disregard that organization. But this toleration of savage self-government worked no prejudice to the sovereignty of the United States.

3. The decay of a tribe in numbers and in cohesion, no matter to what extent carried, does not bring the members of such tribe within the municipal jurisdiction of the State wherein they are found, so long as the tribal organization continues to be recognized by the National Government. See the Kansas Indians, 5 Wallace, 737.

4. Congress is constitutionally competent to extend the laws of the United States at once over every Indian tribe within the Territories, if not within the States of the Union, even though treaties may guarantee to individual tribes complete and perpetual political independence; the breach of faith involved in the latter case being matter for possible conscientious scruples on the part of legislators, not for judicial cognizance. See 11 Wallace, 616; 2 Curtis, 454; 1 Woolworth, 155.