purpose contemplated by the provision aforesaid. Ibid. GUANO ISLANDS. 1. What facts must be established to justify the President in considering a guano island as appertaining to the United States. Manner of proceeding, and substance of bond to be given by the discoverer. Opinion of June 2, 1857, 9 Op. 30. 2. The act of August 18, 1856, chap. 164, requires, before an island whereon guano is discovered shall be deemed as appertaining to the United States, that the island shall be taken possession of and actually occupied ; conditions which are not complied with by a mere symbolical possession or occupancy. Opinion of July 12, 1859, 9 Op. 364. 3. No claim, under the act of Congress, can have any earlier inception than the actual discovery of guano deposit, possession taken, and actual occupancy of the island, rock, or key whereon it is found. Ibid. 4. In determining the proper party to give the bond required by the act of Congress, the political department of the Government can only look to the party complying with the conditions of the statute, without considering the legal or equitable rights of other parties to share in the profits of the speculation, which are to be left for the determination of the proper judicial tribunals. Ibid. 5. The President has no power to annex a guano island to the United States while a diplomatic question as to jurisdiction is pending between this Government and that of a foreign nation. Opinion of Dec. 14, 1859, 9 Op. 406. 6. The Secretary of State ought not to revoke the proclamation issued August 7, 1860, relative to Howland's Island, in the Pacific Ocean, in favor of the United States Guano Company, upon the application of the American Guano Company. Opinion of Nov. 13, 1865, 11 Op. 397. 7. The eighth section of the act of March 3, 1865, chap. 80, repeals that part of the act of August 18, 1856, chap. 164, which requires the trade in guano from guano islands to be carried on in coasting-vessels; and for two years from and after July 14, 1865, all persons who have complied with the act of 1856, section 2, may export guano in any vessels which may lawfully export merchandise from the United States. Opinion of June 27, 1866, 11 Op. 514. 8. Claim of the widow of William H. Parker, under the acts of August 18, 1856, chap. 164, and April 2, 1872, chap. 81, to certain guano islands in the Pacific Ocean, examined, and the following conclusion reached: that claimant has no derivative title to the islands under her late husband, and that she is not now in a situation to set up an original title thereto in herself. Opinion of May 8, 1873, 14 Op. 608. HABEAS CORPUS. 1. A writ of habeas corpus may be awarded to bring up an American subject unlawfully detained on board a foreign ship-of-war lying in any port or harbor of the United States, although the respect due to the foreign sovereign may require that a clear case be made out before the writ be directed to issue. Opinion of June 24, 1794, 1 Op. 47. 2. The jurisdiction of the nation is as complete over its ports and harbors as over the land itself; and the law of nations invests the commander of a foreign ship-of-war with no exemption from the jurisdiction of the country into which he comes. He cannot claim that exterritoriality which is annexed to a foreign minister and to his domicil; but he is conceived to be fully within the reach of and amenable to the usual jurisdiction of the State where he happens to be. Ibid. 3. James Collier, being indicted in the district court of the northern district of California on the charge of feloniously converting to his own use public money intrusted to him as collector of San Francisco, and being arrested in the State of Ohio by warrant of the district judge of the United States in order to be carried to California for trial, was taken from the United States marshal by habeas corpus ad subjiciendum granted by a judge of the State of Ohio: Held that the act of the State court was an act of unlawful interference with the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Opinion of Sept. 9, 1853, 6 Op. 103. 4. When a party is lawfully in custody under the judicial authority having apparent jurisdiction of the subject-matter, no other court is collaterally to take jurisdiction of the case under cover of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, even as between courts of the same sovereignty or jurisdiction. Ibid. 5. A fortiori, a prisoner cannot be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of a State by habeas corpus issued by the courts of the United States, nor from that of the United States by habeas corpus issued by the courts of a State. Ibid. 6. The courts of the United States are the rightful judges of their own jurisdiction. Ibid. 7. In case where a person claimed as a fugigitive from foreign justice is under examination before a commissioner of the United States, it is not in the lawful power of a State court to revise the case on habeas corpus and assume to overrule the commissioner. Opinion of Dec. 20, 1853, 6 p. 237. 8. It is the right of the marshal of the United States to refuse to have the body of the party before the State court, and it is the duty of the courts and other authorities of the United States to protect the marshal in such refusal by all means known to the laws. Ibid. 9. When a person is under arrest for any cause on the warrant of a competent judicial authority of the United States, such person cannot lawfully be discharged on habeas corpus by the courts of a State, and vice versa. Opinion of Sept. 11, 1854, 6 Op. 713. 12. Under the Constitution of the United States the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus belongs exclusively to Congress. Opinion of Feb. 3, 1857, 8 Op. 365. 13. The military authorities of the United States in the State of Mississippi, during the existence of the provisional government therein established by the President, had authority to arrest and imprison a citizen for crime, and hold him in disregard of a writ of habeas corpus issued by the judge of a court appointed by the provisional governor. Opinion of Aug. 23, 1865, 11 Op. 322. 14. The several acts of Congress relative to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to issue writs of habeas corpus do not declare that the jurisdiction of those courts shall be exclusive of the jurisdiction of the State courts, even in cases provided for by Federal law. Opinion of Oct. 4, 1867, 12 Op. 259. 15. The power conferred on the Secretary of War to discharge minors under the age of eighteen from the Army is not exclusive, and does not oust judicial inquiry upon habeas corpus of the legality of the enlistment. Ibid. 16. Although there has been conflict of opinion on the question of the authority of a State court to discharge a person held under color of authority of the United States, there has not been any serious conflict of opinion as to the jurisdiction of a State court to require a return to its writ of habeas corpus in such a case and the production of the body. Ibid. 10. Certain persons being under arrest in the State of Wisconsin by proper judicial authority of the United States, charged with obstructing the execution of the acts of Congress in the case of a fugitive from service, were discharged 17. An exception, however, exists in the from arrest on habeas corpus by the supreme case of a person shown to be imprisoned under court of the State for alleged unconstitution-judicial process of the United States; for there, ality of the extradition act: Held that such decision requires to be reviewed on writ of error by the Supreme Court of the United States. Ibid. 11. A person having been indicted and convicted on trial before the district court of the United States for the State of Wisconsin, for the forcible rescue of a fugitive from service in another State, who had been arrested by due process preparatory to extradition, and he having, after conviction, been released by the supreme court of the State on habeas corpus: Held that the action of the tribunals of the State was unlawful, and should be brought for review by writ of error before the Supreme under the decision in the case of Ableman vs. Booth (21 How. 506), the State court cannot require the production of the body of the relator. Ibid. 18. It seems that the doctrine of the decision in that case is applicable only to proceedings upon habeas corpus, in State courts, in cases of imprisonment under process issued under the authority of the United States, and does not extend to a case of imprisonment by an executive officer having the custody or control of an enlisted person. Ibid. 19. The capacity of the proper courts of the United States to take jurisdiction in habeas corpus of persons enlisted in the Navy does not, before its actual exercise, oust the juris- subject to the tax and other obligations, of diction of a State court. Ibid. citizens of the State of Virginia. Opinion of June 24, 1854, 6 Op. 577. 2. The United States have a valid title in 20. A former rebel soldier was arrested in September, 1867, by the military authorities for an assault in Tennessee upon a private citi-fee-simple of all their property at Harper's zen, with a view of putting him on trial by a Ferry, West Virginia. Opinion of Dec. 5, 1867, military commission for violation of his parole 12 Op. 329. given on May 1,1865. He subsequently sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the district judge, who, on full hearing before himself alone, the circuit judge not being present, discharged the prisoner: Held that under the existing statutes there was no mode by which the case could be taken by appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Opinion of Dec. 17, 1867, 12 Op. 332. 21. An officer of the Army, in Kansas, having arrested three men, at the request of the United States marshai, charged with assaulting the latter and obstructing the execution of process by him, while the parties so arrested were in the officer's custody a writ of habeas corpus was issued by the probate judge of the county, commanding the officer to bring before him the bodies of the prisoners, together with the cause of their detention; the officer made a proper return to the writ, but without bringing up the prisoners, whom he turned over to the marshal; whereupon the judge issued an attachment against the officer: Held (on the assumption that the marshal made the arrest under proper process or warrant of a United States court or commissioner, or for an offense committed within his own view, and that the officer was duly summoned by the marshal to assist in making the arrest and holding the prisoners) that it was the duty of the officer to obey the writ of habeas corpus no further than to make a respectful return of the facts of the case, showing that he held the prisoners under authority of the United States, and that the attachment was void and need not have been obeyed. Opinion of June 19, 1871, 13 Op. 451. HARPER'S FERRY. 1. The persons in the employment of the United States, actually residing in the limits of the armory at Harper's Ferry, do not possess the civil and political rights, nor are they HEAD-MONEY. The ascertainment and distribution of bounty or head-money for the destruction of armed enemy vessels, by naval vessels of the United States, are subjects of judicial cognizance by the admiralty courts of the United States; and proceedings to that end in the district court of the District of Columbia are regular and valid, and afford all proper protection to the interests of the Government. Opinion of Nov. 23, 1867, 12 Op. 314. HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE. 1. The Government Hospital for the Insane in the District of Columbia is designed only for the use of the Army and Navy, and for such other persons as may be residents of the District at the time of becoming insane. Opinion of Aug. 30, 1855, 7 Op. 450. 2. Volunteer soldiers who have become insane within a period of more than three years after their discharge from service may be admitted to the Government Hospital for the Insane in the District of Columbia, whether at the time they became insane they were inmates of any volunteer soldiers' asylum or not. Opinion of April 23, 1873, 14 Op. 225. HOT SPRINGS. 1. The Hot Springs in the State of Arkansas are the property of the United States, having been reserved from entry or sale by expres3 act of Congress. Opinion of Avg. 30, 1854, 6 Op. 697. 2. None of the parties asserting title thereto, either by pre-emption, location, or otherwise, present any satisfactory proof of such title as against the United States. Ibid. INDEMNITY. February 13, 1862, chap. 24, and also the provisions of the act of March 15, 1864, chap. 33, See DAMAGES; INTERNATIONAL LAW, II; the introduction of spirituous liquors into the PUBLIC LANDS, XVII. INDIAN AGENTS AND AGENCIES. 1. The President may, subject to the re Indian country is impliedly prohibited, whenever it is not done by authority of the War Department. Opinion of April 12, 1873, 14 Op. 290. 2. Semble, therefore, that the authority of that Department touching the introduction of strictions imposed by section 1224 Rev. Stat., liquors into the Indian country is exclusive. direct the military commandant in Alaska to execute the duties of an Indian agent there. Opinion of May 5, 1875, 14 Op. 573. 2. Under sections 2058 and 2089 Rev. Stat. the President may, in his discretion, devolve the disbursement of funds for the Indian agencies within a superintendency upon the superintendent thereof or upon the several Indian agents within the same superintendency. Opinion of Dec. 15, 1875, 15 Op. 66. 3. Under section 2053 Rev. Stat. the President has discretionary power to dispense with the services of any Indian agent; and, under sections 1224 and 2062 Rev. Stat., he is authorized to assign a military officer to execute the duties of such agent, if this can be done without separating the officer from his company, regiment, or corps, or otherwise interfering with the performance of his military duties; or, under section 2053 Rev. Stat., he may devolve the duties of such agent upon an agent who has been appointed for another agency. Opinion of Dec. 6, 1877, 15 Op. 405. 4. The President can, under section 2059 Rev. Stat., discontinue any agency, whereupon the functions of the agent would cease. He can also, under the same section, transfer the agency to another place; for instance, to the vicinity of a military post, should it be contemplated to require a military officer to perform the duties of agent. Ibid. 5. Under section 2045 Rev. Stat. an Indian agent may, at any time, be suspended, and the place temporarily filled in the mode there provided. Ibid. INDIAN COUNTRY. 1. Under the provisions of the twentieth section of the act of June 30, 1834, chap. 161, as amended by the second section of the act of March 3, 1847, chap. 66, and the act of Ibid. 3. Review of the legislation of Congress bearing on the question, what is Indian country within the meaning of the Indian intercourse laws? and held that all reservations west of the Mississippi River which are occupied by Indian tribes, and also all other districts so occupied to which the Indian title has not been extinguished, are Indian country within the meaning of those laws, and remain (to a greater or less extent, according as they lie within a State or Territory) subject to the provisions thereof. Ibid. of the latter has been only partially relinquished, citizens of the United States cannot divest themselves of allegiance to our Government by a residence among them, nor even by becoming members of the Choctaw Nation. Opinion of Dec. 26, 1834, 2 Op. 693. 2. And the political relation of negro slaves owned by white men residing in the Choctaw country depends on that of their masters. Ibid. 9. Had Congress intended to exact a release from the individual Indians, they would have doubtless expressed that intention in the law. Ibid. 10. The moneys appropriated by the acts of 30th September, 1850, chap. 91, and 27th February, 1851, chap. 12, are to be paid to the Indians referred to in the twelfth and fifteenth articles of the treaty of 1835, and in the ninth and tenth articles of the treaty of 1846, con 3. The Cherokee fund is not liable for dam-cluded with the Cherokees. Opinion of April ages arising from the non-fulfillment by the 16, 1851, 5 Op. 320. Government of contracts made for the removal of, and supplies for, the Cherokee Indians. Opinion of March 20, 1839, 3 Op. 431. 4. Indians at peace with the United States are in no received sense of the word "an enemy," and cannot be judicially considered as embraced within it. Opinion of Aug. 13, 1842, 4 Op. 81. 11. The distribution is to be made per capita and equally among all the individuals residing east, and also all those residing west other than the "old settlers" found to be in existence at the time of the distribution, each being considered as entitled in his own right, and not by representation of another who is dead; and the payment of these distribution shares is to be made to the individuals entitled, if of com heads of families to which they belong, whether those heads of families be male or female, father or mother, or persons standing in loco parentis. Ibid. 5. It is not the duty of the Executive to pay over the moneys appropriated in the third sec-petent age; the shares of children to be paid to tion of the act of August 12, 1848, chap. 166, to the Creek Nation of Indians, except on the condition that said nation shall first execute a full discharge of principal and interest on account of the sum of $250,000. Opinion of Oct. 28, 1848, 5 Op. 46. 6. The form of the release of the claim of the Creeks upon the Government, which has been submitted to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, answers the requirements of the third section of the act of 12th of August, 1848, chap. 166, if it satisfactorily appear that the chiefs and headmen who have executed it are in fact the chiefs and headmen of the Creeks, and constitute a majority of their national council. Opinion of March 21, 1849, 5 Op. 79. 7. The power of attorney, authorizing Joseph Bryan to receive certain moneys from the United States, is sufficient for its purpose if it appear that it was executed by those chiefs and headmen who had authority to execute such an instrument. Ibid. 8. The moneys appropriated by section 4 of the act of August 12, 1848, chap. 166, in execution of the treaty of 24th of January, 1826, with the Creeks, may be paid to the chiefs and headmen of that nation upon their executing a release in full for all claims for principal and interest on account of the emigration of 1,300 Indians, &c. Opinion of May 10, 1849, 5 Op. 98. | 12. The whole number of the Cherokees to whom payments are to be made per capita, and the identity of the persons to whom distribution is to be made, are questions of fact to be determined in such manner as the Secretary of the Interior, by and with the advice and consent of the President, shall deem discreet. Ibid. 13. No part of the money appropriated for per capita payments to the Cherokees can be paid otherwise than by an equal distribution of it among those Indians individually. (See opinion of 23d of June, 1851, 5 Op. 379.) Opinion of Dec. 2, 1851, 5 Op. 502. 14. Under the act of 3d March, 1852, chap. 11, it is competent for the superintendent of Indian affairs in California to examine claims and accounts for furnishing provisions to the Indians. Opinion of July 21, 1852, 5 Op. 572. 15. Indians are not capable of pre-empting the public lands of the United States. Opinion of July 5, 1856, 7 Op. 746. 16. Half-breed Indians are to be treated as Indians in all respects, so long as they retain their tribal relations. Ibid. 17. Where a certain class of Indians are entitled to a certain sum per head, but the ap |