accurately described, within which the laws of Georgia could not rightfully have any force, and into which the citizens of that State had no right to enter but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of Congress. (c) 24

Single § 39. States may be either single, or may be united together under a common sovereign prince, or by a fed

or united

States.

eral compact.

the same

Personal § 40. If this union under a common sovereign is not union under an incorporate union, that is to say, if it is only persovereign. sonal 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. (a) Thus, the kingdom of Hanover was formerly held by the king of

(c) Kent's Comment. on American Law, iii. 383.

(a) 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.

[24 It is important to notice the underlying fact, that the title to all the lands occupied by the Indian tribes, beyond the limits of the thirteen original States, is in the United States. The republic acquired it by the treaties of peace with Great Britain, by cessions from France and Spain, and by relinquishments made by the several States. The Indian tribes have only a right of occupancy. Their possession was held to be of so nomadic and uncivilized a character as to amount to no more than a kind of servitude or lien upon the land, chiefly for fishing, and hunting: the absolute title being in the republic. Whenever the republic has bought out an Indian tribe, and induced it to remove from a section of country, the act has always been called an "extinguishment of the Indian title" upon the lands of the United States. This title of occupancy the tribes are not permitted to convey to any other than the United States. The United States protect the Indians in their possession, and make treaties with the tribes; at the same time, the government makes laws, which have effect within the occupancy of the tribes, to punish Indians as well as white persons for crimes, and to decide questions between whites, or between Indians and whites, and provide for the education of the tribal Indians in agriculture and the arts of life, and plain school-teaching, at the public expense. A tribe is not a "foreign State," within the meaning of the Constitution, for the purpose of suing in the Federal courts. Where a tribe holds a district within a State, and is recognized by the United States as having tribal authority and jurisdiction, the State cannot make penal and criminal laws to arrest Indians, remove them, and try them for crimes in the State courts. The Indian tribes are not under State jurisdiction where they hold lands within the State, as a tribe, under treaties and laws of the republic; and their relations with the republic are sui generis, having been shaped and modified by time and events. Worcester v. Georgia, Peters, vi. 515; Mitchell v. United States, Peters, ix. 711; Lattimer v. Poteet, Peters, xiv. 4; United States v. Fernandez, Peters, x. 303; United States v. Rogers, How. iv. 467; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Peters, v. 1; Brightly's Digest of United States Laws, title "Indians."]—D.

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 is thus that the king of Prussia is also sovereign prince of Neufchatel, one of the Swiss Cantons; which does not, on that account, cease to maintain its relations with the Confederation, nor is it united with the Prussian monarchy.25

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.

union under

§ 41. The union of the different States composing the Real Austrian monarchy is a real union. The hereditary the same dominions of the House of Austria, the kingdoms of sovereign. Hungary and Bohemia, the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, and other States, are all indissolubly united under the same sceptre, but with distinct fundamental laws, and other political institutions.

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.26

[25 The independence of Neufchatel was recognized by Prussia in 1857, and it is now simply a canton of the Swiss Confederation.] — D.

[26 By the treaty of Zurich, of 1859, carrying out the preliminaries of Villafranca, Lombardy, with the exception of the fortresses of Mantua and Peschiera, was transferred by Austria to France, and by France to Sardinia, and is now part of the kingdom of Italy. Venetia remains under Austrian control.

The relations of Hungary with Austria have been in a state of change since the

Incorporate union.

§ 42. An incorporate union is such as that which subsists between Scotland and England, and between Great Britain and Ireland; forming out of the three kingdoms 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.

rebellion of 1848. On the suppression of the rebellion, the emperor made the attempt to merge Hungary in the Austrian Empire, and assumed and exercised absolute power over it until 1860, when he issued his diploma of 20 October, 1860, and his patent of 27 February, 1861. By the diploma and patent, he proposed a plan of government in this form: There should be an Imperial diet, or Reichsrath, for the entire empire, and separate diets for the component parts of the empire. The supreme legislative power was to be in the emperor; but the Reichsrath was to have a consultative vote, and its concurrence was necessary for certain exercises of authority, as the laying of taxes, the raising of troops, and the imposition of duties, - the usual guaranties of constitutional government. The ancient constitution of Hungary was to be restored, except that the Diet was to part with its jurisdiction over subjects placed in the class of imperial powers, and conceded to the emperor and the Reichsrath. Under the patent, the Hungarian Diet assembled; but Hungary refused to send deputies to the Reichsrath, so that the latter never had an existence in fact. An Austrian Diet held its sessions at Vienna, having jurisdiction only over Austria proper and some of the dependencies. The Hungarian Diet insisted on retaining to itself two powers, the laying of taxes, and the raising of troops. By a steady adherence to the exercise of these functions, and a refusal to take part in the Reichsrath on the terms of October, 1860, Hungary at length brought the emperor to suggest the possibility of further concessions; the results of the Italian war, and the fact of.an. empty treasury and impaired credit, and the increasing assumptions of Prussia in the affairs of the German Confederation, having forced upon him some decided change of system. On the 14th of December, 1865, the emperor opened the Hungarian Diet in person, at Pesth, and offered to be crowned King of Hungary, and to sustain their ancient constitution; submitting to them again the diploma of October, 1860, to which he admitted the possibility of some amendments. The Hungarian Diet was to be composed of Hungary and its dependencies, Croatia and Transylvania; while the other Diet was to represent Austria and Bohemia, and the German provinces of the empire. The point of difference was chiefly upon the raising of troops and taxes. Hungary was willing to concede to the Reichsrath the subjects of duties on exports and imports, foreign international relations, the declaration of war, and the making of peace; as well as the post, public railroads, education, ecclesiastical affairs, and the currency. It was plain, however, that, if Hungary could determine what taxes she should lay, and what troops she should raise, she had an effective veto on the central power. At the Diet of 1866, an address to the throne (the throne of Hungary) was adopted, in general terms expressing readiness to come into the plan of the central government, "if the political and administrative autonomy of Hungary be maintained intact." It accepts the Pragmatic Sanction, but rejects the diploma of October, 1860, as it then stood. So, the adjustment remains, at this time, unsettled.]—D.

Union be

tween Rus

§ 43. The union established by the Congress of Vienna, between the empire of Russia and the kingdom and Poof Poland, is of a more anomalous character. By the land. final act of the congress, the Duchy of Warsaw, with the exception of the provinces and districts otherwise disposed of, was re-united 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. (a)

Poland

accorded by

of the Emperor pro- to the kingwas dom of Poland, in

Alexander

con- 1815.

In pursuance of these stipulations, the Emperor Alex- Charter ander granted a constitutional charter to the kingdom Poland, on 15th (27th) November, 1815. By the visions of this charter, the kingdom of declared to be united to the Russian Empire by its stitution; 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 chambers forming the Diet; in which body the legislative power was to be vested, including that of taxation. A distinct Polish national army and coinage, and distinct military orders, were to be preserved in the kingdom.

(a) "Le Duché de Varsovie, à l'exception des provinces et districts, dont il a été autrement disposé dans les articles suivans, est réuni à l'Empire de Russie. Il y sera lié irrévocablement par sa Constitution, pour étre possédé par S. M. l'Empereur de toutes les Russies, ses héritiers et ses successeurs à perpétuité. Sa Majesté Impériale se reserve de donner à cet état, jouissant d'une administration 'distincte, l'extension intérieure qu'elle jugera convenable. Elle prendra, avec ses autres titres celui de Czar, Roi de Pologne, conformément au protocle usité et consacré par les titres attachés à ses autres possessions.

“Les Polonais, sujets respectifs de la Russie, de l'Autriche, et de la Prusse, obtiendront une représentation et des institutions nationales, réglées d'après la mode d'existence politique que chacun des Gouvernemens auxquelles ils appartiennent jugera utile et convenable de leur accorder.” — Art. 1.

Manifesto

peror Nicho

las, 1832.

In consequence of the revolution and reconquest of of the Em- Poland by Russia, a manifesto. was issued by the Emperor Nicholas, on the 14th (26th) of February, 1832, by which the kingdom of Poland was declared to be perpetually united (réuni) to the Russian Empire, and to form an integral part thereof; the coronation of the emperors of Russia and kings of Poland hereafter to take place at Moscow, by one and the same act; the Diet to be abolished, and the army of the empire and of the kingdom to form one army, without distinction of Russian or Polish troops; Poland to be separately administered by a Governor-General and Council of Administration, appointed by the Emperor, and to preserve its civil and criminal code, subject to alteration and revision by laws and ordinances prepared in the Polish Council of State, and subsequently examined and confirmed in the Section of the Council of State of the Russian Empire, called The Section for the Affairs of Poland; consultative Provincial States to be established in the different Polish provinces, to deliberate upon such affairs concerning the general interest of the kingdom of Poland as might be submitted to their consideration; the Assemblies of the Nobles, Communal Assemblies, and Council of the Waiwodes to be continued as formerly. Great Britain and France protested against this measure of the Russian government, as an infraction of the spirit if not of the letter of the treaties of Vienna. (b) 27

(b) Wheaton's Hist. of the Law of Nations, 434.

[27 In 1861, the Diet of Poland was re-established, and the emperor was to act as King of Poland, in matters relating to that kingdom. A new revolution in Poland, in 1862, growing out of the revival of a stringent system of conscription enforced there, was followed by a convention between Russia and Prussia; in which Prussia agreed to drive back from her borders all Polish insurgents, and to permit the entry of Russian forces into Prussia in pursuit of insurgents. This convention (known as the Convention of St. Petersburg) was strongly objected to by France and England, but not effectually. They proposed, on the 17th June, 1863, six points of arrangement with Poland, looking to the restoring of Poland to its condition under the treaty of Vienna. These were refused by Russia; and France and England, being left to the alternative of war, abandoned any further attempt to aid Poland; and the insurrection was suppressed by the exercise of the most extreme measures. It can no longer be pretended that Poland is held by Russia under the treaty of Vienna, whatever be the right of the case, or the forms kept up. Russia, in fact, holds her Polish territories by the sword, and in defiance of the remonstrances of France and England respecting breaches of the treaty; and Austria and Prussia are either neutral, or abettors of Russia, having strong interests in common; and the relations of Russian Poland to Russia, not yet fully adjusted, may be said to depend on the will of the Czar. Annual Register,