the Union, March 3, 1845, upon an equal footing with the original States.31

$95. Treaties with Mexico of 1848 and 1853.-Article VIII of the treaty with Mexico of February 2, 1848, provided that the Mexicans then established in the territories previously belonging to Mexico, might, if they continued to reside in the territories, either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States; but that those who remained in the territories after the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans should be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States. Article IX reads: "The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the meantime, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction." The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged May 30, 1848, and the treaty was proclaimed July 4, 1848. The treaty did not in express terms provide for a cession of territory by Mexico to the United States, but for a change in the boundaries between the two countries. "In consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States, as defined in the fifth article" of the treaty, Mexico was to receive $15,000,000. The territory was at the time of the conclusion of the treaty in the military occupation of the United States. The Secretary of State, Mr. Buchanan, in a letter to Wm. V. Vorhies, October 7, 1848, and the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Walker, in a circular letter of even date to collectors, took the view that California had, upon the exchange of ratifications of the treaty, become domestic territory in the administration of the revenue laws, and that products shipped from California after May 30, 1848, were entitled to free entry in all ports of the United States, and, conversely, that products of the States were entitled to free admission in the ports of California.32

31 5 Stats. at L. 742. See also act of March 3, 1823, 3 Stats. at L. 750. 32 Ex. Doc. No. 1, 30th Cong., 2d Sess., 45, 47.

Congress failed to make any provision for the collection of duties in the new territory until March 3, 1849. This act in words expressly extended the revenue laws of the United States to that portion of the ceded territory known as Upper California, and provided for its erection into a collection district. The collector appointed under this act did not assume charge of his office until November 13, 1849. Import duties were collected prior to the receipt of notice of the exchange of ratifications of the treaty at rates fixed by the President as commander-in-chief, and, after the receipt of this notice and until the arrival of the collector, November 13, 1849, in conformity with the rates fixed in the revenue laws then in force in the United States. In the case of Cross v. Harrison, the Supreme Court upheld the right to impose and collect these rates of duty. The goods involved in the case before the court came from ports other than those of the United States.34 In the course of the opinion for the court, Mr. Justice Wayne observed that "after the ratification of the treaty California became a part of the United States, or a ceded, conquered territory"; by the ratifications of the treaty California became a part of the United States, and as there was "nothing differently stipulated in the treaty with respect to commerce, it became instantly bound and privileged by the laws which Congress had passed to raise a revenue from duties on imports and tonnage." By an act approved September 9, 1850, prior to any legislation as to its territorial organization, California was admitted as a State into the Union; and by an act approved September 28, 1850, it was expressly enacted that all the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable should have the same force and effect in the State of California as elsewhere in the United States. An act approved

33 9 Stats. at L. 400.

34 16 How. 164, 183, 184, 193.

35 Id., 191.

that

36 Id., 197. This statement would seem to be inconsistent with a decision sustaining the right to collect the duties according to the war tariff from May 30, 1848, the date of the exchange of ratifications, until August 7, 1848, the date notice of this fact was received at San Francisco. See for analysis of this decision, Brown, J., De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 185; White, J., concurring, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 309. Mr. Justice White in his opinion says: "It was stated, in so many words, that a different rule would have been applied had the stipulations in the treaty been of a different character."

37 9 Stats. at L. 452.

38 9 Stats. at L. 521.

September 9, 1850 provided for the organization and government of the remaining territory lying between the States of Texas and California, and designated the Territory of New Mexico. By section 17 of this act it was expressly enacted that the Constitution and all laws of the United States which were not locally inapplicable should have the same force and effect within the Territory as elsewhere within the United States. Section 19 provided that no citizen of the United States should be deprived of his life, liberty, or property in the Territory except by the judgment of his peers and the laws of the land. By an act approved August 4, 1854, the additional territory acquired from Mexico by the Gadsden treaty, concluded December 30, 1853, and proclaimed June 30, 1854, was incorporated with, and made subject to all the laws of, the Territory of New Mexico.40

As regards the Mexicans, who were established in the territory at the time of the conclusion of the treaty, and who continued to reside in the territory without making the declaration of intention to retain Mexican citizenship as provided for in the treaty, it has been held in various cases coming before State and Territorial courts that they ceased by operation of the treaty to be aliens, and acquired the nationality of the United States."1

896. Organization of Various Western Territories.-In the acts for the organization and establishment of territorial government, in Utah, of September 9, 1850; in Kansas and Nebraska, of May 30, 1854, (subject to certain specific exceptions); in Colorado, of February 28, 1861; in Dakota, of March 2, 1861; in Nevada, of March 2, 1861; in Arizona, of February 24, 1863, (by reference to New Mexico); in Idaho, of March 3, 1863; in Montana, of May 26, 1864; and in Wyoming, of July 25, 1868, it was in each instance expressly enacted that the Consti

39 9 Stats. at L. 446, 452.

40 10 Stats. at L. 575.

41 People v. Naglee, (1850) 1 Cal. 232; People v. de la Guerra, (1870) 40 Cal. 311; United States v. Lucero (1869), 1 N. Mex. 422, 434; United States v. Juan Santistevan, (1874) 1 ld. 583; In re Rodriguez, (1897) 81 Fed. 337, 351; Chavez v. United States, United States and Mexican Claims Commission of 1868, Moore, Int. Arb., III, 2510; Vallejos v. United States, (1900) 35 C. Cls. 489; De Baca v. United States, (1901) 37 C. Cls. 482; 189 U. S. 505. See as to the exercise of election to retain Mexican citizenship, Quintana v. Tomkins, (1853) 1 N. Mex. 29; Carter v. Territory, (1859) 1 Id. 317; Tobin v. Walkinshaw et al., (1856) 1 McAllister 186. See, generally, Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States, 151.

tution and laws of the United States, which were not locally inapplicable, should have the same force and effect in the Territory so organized as elsewhere within the United States.42 Section 1891 of the Revised Statutes reads: "The Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within all the organized Territories, and in every Territory hereafter organized as elsewhere within the United States." In the act approved May 2, 1890, for the erection of the Territory of Oklahoma, and for its organization and government, it was likewise expressly provided that the Constitution and all laws of the United States not locally inapplicable should, except so far as modified by the act, have the same force and effect as elsewhere within the United States.48

$97. Treaty with Russia of 1867.-By the treaty signed March 30, 1867, Russia agreed to cede to the United States, immediately upon the exchange of ratifications, all her territory and dominion on the continent of North America and adjacent islands." Specific provision was made for the formal delivery, but the cession, with the right of immediate possession, was to be deemed complete and absolute upon the exchange of ratifications, without waiting for formal delivery." With respect to the inhabitants of the ceded territory it was stipulated that, reserving their natural allegiance, they might return to Russia, but that if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, should "be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States," and should be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion; that the uncivilized tribes should be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States might from time to time adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country. The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged, June 20, 1867, and the treaty was proclaimed on the same date. The formal transfer took place on October 18,

46

42 9 Stats. at L. 458; 10 Id. 282, 289; 12 Id. 176, 214, 244, 665, 813; 13 Id. 91; 15 Id. 183.

43 Section 1850 of the Revised Statutes was expressly excepted. As regards the Indian Territory as defined in the act, see especially the last paragraph of section 31. 26 Stats. at L. 93, 96.

44 Art. I.

45 Art. IV.

45 Art. III.

49

1867." In transmitting a copy of the treaty to Congress, July 6, 1867, the President directed attention not only to the subject of an appropriation but also to the subject of proper legislation for the occupation and government of the territory as a part of the dominion of the United States. Congress however adjourned without making any provision in this regard. The President in his annual message of December 3, 1867 again brought the subject to the attention of Congress, observing that, possession having been formally delivered, the territory remained in care of a military force, awaiting such civil organization as should be directed by Congress. On July 27, 1868, two acts were approved, one making the required appropriation, the other expressly extending over the territory the laws of the United States relating to customs, commerce and navigation, and constituting it a collection district.50 In the annual messages of 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, and 1883, the President recommended legislation for the organization and establishment of a civil government in Alaska. In his message of December 4, 1883, President Arthur said: "I trust that Congress will not fail at its present session to put Alaska under the protection of law. Its people have repeatedly remonstrated against our neglect to afford them the maintenance and protection expressly guaranteed by the terms of the treaty whereby that territory was ceded to the United States. For sixteen years they have pleaded in vain for that which they should have received without the asking." By an act approved May 17, 1884, Alaska was constituted a civil and judicial district, and provision was made for a civil government. The general laws of the State of Oregon then in force were declared to be the law in the district so far as applicable and not in conflict with the provisions of the act or the laws of the United States.52 In view of section 1891 of the Revised Statutes, the incorporation of Alaska as an integral part of the United States may be considered as having been accom

47 H. Ex. Doc. No. 125, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 8.

48 Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VI, 524. 49 Id., 580.

50 15 Stats. at L. 198, 240. Sections 20 and 21 of the act of June 30, 1834, to regulate trade and intercourse with Indian tribes, were extended to Alaska by the act of March 3, 1873. 17 Stats. at L. 530.

51 Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VII, 570, 621; VIII, 64, 144, 184.

52 Sec. 7. 23 Stats. at L. 24.