judicial question.... But, if a contingency shall
occur which shall render the Indians who reside in a State incapable of
self-government, either by moral degradation or a reduction of their
numbers, it would undoubtedly be in the power of a State government to
extend over them the aegis of its laws."--6 _Peters_, pp. 593-4.

If, as would appear, Mr. Justice McLean by this intends that a State may
exercise such discretion so long as the United States continue to
recognize the tribal organization, however feeble or corrupt it may in
fact be, the doctrine is flatly contradicted by that of the Supreme
Court in the Kansas Indians.--5 _Wallace_, 737.

[M] We are aware that this is a heavy charge; but it is justified by the
facts. The recital is incomplete. The decision in the United States
_vs._ Rogers is not referred to. This case is, as it was treated by the
Supreme Court in the Cherokee Tobacco, of the highest importance.

The recital is inaccurate. An opinion is given at length as that of Kent
in Jackson vs. Goodell, 20 Johnson, 193. This is a case in the Supreme
Court of New York, Chief-Justice Spencer delivering the opinion, Kent
having been previously appointed chancellor. The expressions quoted by
the Committee are to be found in Goodell vs. Jackson, in error to the
Court of Appeals, 20 Johnson, 693. The recital is inconsequential, as
will appear by what is said further in the text.

[N] "We think it too firmly and clearly established to admit of dispute,
that the Indian tribes residing within the territorial limits of the
United States are subject to their authority; and where the country
occupied by them is not within the limit of one of the States, Congress
may by law punish any offence committed there, whether the offender be a
white man or an Indian."--_Taney, Chief-Justice._

In the Cherokee Tobacco, the court, quoting from Chief-Justice Taney the
sentence just preceding, and a similar utterance of Chief-Justice
Marshall, remarks, "Both these propositions are so well settled in our
jurisprudence, that it would be a waste of time to discuss them, or to
refer to further authorities in their support."

[O] Throughout the whole course of this discussion on the constitutional
relations of the Indians, we should indicate as subject to possible
exception the tribes found upon soil ceded by Mexico. It is claimed,
that, as Mexico never treated the Indians within its jurisdiction other
than as a peculiar class of ci