"Sec. 5. That upon the approval of the allotments provided for in this act by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall cause patents to issue therefor in the name of the allottees, which patents shall be of the legal effect, and declare that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made, or, in case of his decease, of his heirs, according to the laws of the State or Territory where such land is located, and that at the expiration of said period the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian, or his heirs as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever: Provided, That the President of the United States may in any case in his discretion extend the period.- .

The declaration of 1871, and the acts of 1885 and 1887, and the sustaining of their constitutionality by the Supreme Court, illustrate the legal power of the United States to govern the tribal Indians at will as bodies of individuals completely subject to its legal control, despite the status of quasi-independence that has been accorded them. This absolute power of control has been conspicuously exhibited in more recent legislation which has been enacted in pursuance of a policy decided upon to abolish, as rapidly as possible, the tribal relations and governments, to extinguish the Indian titles to lands, and to incorporate the individual Indians in the general citizen bodies of the States and Territories in which they live.

"Sec. 6. That upon the completion of said allotments and the patenting of the lands to said allottees, each and every member of the respective bands or tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory, in which they may reside; and no Territory shall pass or enforce any law denying any such Indian within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. And every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States to whom allotments shall have been made under the provisions of this act, or under law or treaty, and every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States who has voluntarily taken up, within said limits, his residence separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, is hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States, and is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such citizens whether said Indian has been or not, by birth or otherwise, a member of any tribe of Indians within the territorial limits of the United States without in any manner impairing or otherwise affecting the right of any such Indian to tribal or other property.

"Sec. 8. That the provision of this act shall not extend to the territory occupied by the Cherokees, Creeks. Choctaws, Chickasaws, Seminoles, and Osage. Miamies and Peorias. and Sacs and Foxes, in the Indian Territory, nor to any of the reservations of the Senaca Nation of New York Indians in the State of New York, nor to that strip of territory in the State of Nebraska alone can exercise the power of eminent domain within its limits, finds no support in the numerous treaties with the Cherokee Indians, or in the decisions of this court, or in the acts of Congress defining the relations of that people with the United States.' . . . It is true, as declared in Worcester v. Georgia (6 Pet; 515; 8 L. ed. 483), that the treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian Territory as completely separated from the States and the Cherokee Nation as a distinet community, and (in the language of Mr. Justice McLean in the same case, p. 5S3), that ' in the executive, legislative, and judical branches of our government we have admitted, by the most solemn sanction, the existence of the Indians as a separate and distinct people, and as being vested with rights which constitute them a State, or a separate community.' But that falls far short of saying that they are a sovereign State, with no superior within the limits of its territory."

The new policy was based upon the facts found by the so-called "Dawes- Commission," which was created by the acts of March 3, 1893,29 and March 2, 1895.30

The constitutionality of thus summarily dealing with the Indians by statute, has been questioned in a number of cases before the Supreme Court, but has always been sustained.

In Stephens v. Cherokee Nation,31 decided in 1899, it was held that because such legislation might be in violation of previous treaties with the Cherokees- was no ground for holding it invalid.32 As to the general legislative powers of Congress over the Indians, the court said: "We need not review the decisions on the subject, as they are sufficiently referred to by Mr. Justice Harlan in Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kan. Ry. Co. (135 U. S. 641; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 965; 31 L. ed..295), from whose opinion we quote as follows: ' The proposition that the Cherokee Nation is sovereign- in the sense that the United States is sovereign, or in the sense that the several States- are sovereign, and that that nation adjoining the Sioux Nation on the south added by executive order." (Rev. Stat., § 2316.)

The "Dawes " Act of 1887 also provides for allotments of land and citizenship to Indians who may wish to settle upon the public lands of the United States. It also declares that all Indians forsaking their tribal life and adopting the habits of civilized life shall become citizens. Without this express statutory provision, as was decided in Elk v. Wilkins, citizenship could not thus be obtained.