The peculiar status of those Indians who have not become citizens is illustrated in the form of a letter of protection issued in lieu of a passport, to those traveling abroad. The following is a letter issued by our consul at Odessa, the form of which has been approved by the State Department:

"To whom it may concern:

"The bearer of this document is a North American Indian whose name is Hampa. This Indian is a ward of the United States, and is entitled to the protection of its consular and other officials. He is not, however, entitled to a passport, as he is not a citizen of the United States. This consulate has the honor to request the Russian authorities to grant Hampa all necessary protection during his stay in Russia, and to grant him permission to depart when he requires it."

29 27 Stat, at L. c. 209. 30 2S Stat, at L. c. 189.

31 174 U. S. 445; 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722; 43 L. ed. 1041.

32 Quoting Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; 42 L. ed. 740.

In Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock,33 decided in 1902, the provisions of the Act of 1893, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe regulations for the leasing of mineral lands in the tribal districts of the plaintiffs for the purpose- of making these lands productive and of securing therefrom an income for the benefit of the tribe, was held valid.

In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock,34 decided in 1903, was questioned the constitutionality of an act of Congress-of 1900 providing for allotment in severalty of lands held in common within certain Indian reservations and purporting to give an adequate consideration for the surplus lands not allotted or reserved for their benefit. In its opinion, upholding the validity of the act, notwithstanding its alleged incongruity with previous treaties, the court say: "Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, and not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government. . . The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty, though presumably such power will be exercised only when circumstances arise which will not only justify the government in disregarding the stipulations of the treaty, but may demand, in the interest of the country and the Indians themselves, that it should do so."

33 187 U. S. 204: 23 Sup. C t. Rep. 11.V. 47 L. ed 183.

34 187 U. S. 553; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 21G; 47 L. ed. 299.

In United States v. Rickert,35 decided in 1903, it was held that lands allotted in severalty to Indians under the Act of 1887, and held in trust for them by the United States for twenty-five years, are not taxable by the State in which situated, nor are the improvements upon them, or the cattle or other property furnished the allottees by the United States. The court in its opinion say: "To tax these lands is to tax an instrumentality employed by the United States for the benefit and control of this dependent race, and to accomplish beneficent objects with reference to a race of which this court has said that ' from their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the Federal Government with them and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power. This has always been recognized by the Executive and by Congress, and by this court, whenever the question has arisen.' United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375; 6 Sup. Ct, Rep. 1109; 30 L. ed. 228."

With reference to the permanent improvements on the lands in question, the court say: "Looking at the object to be accomplished by allotting Indian lands in severalty, it is evident that Congress expected that the lands so allotted would be improved and cultivated by the allottee. But that object would be defeated if the improvements could be assessed and sold for taxes. The improvements to which the question refers were of a permanent kind. While the title to the land remained in the United States, the permanent improvements could no more be sold for local taxes than could the land to which they belonged. Every reason that can be urged to show that the land was not subject to local taxation applies to the assessment and taxation of the permanent improvements. It is true that the statutes of South Dakota, for the purpose of taxation, classify 'all improvements made by persons upon lands held by them under the laws of the United States,' as personal property. But that classification cannot apply to permanent improvements upon lands allotted to and occupied by Indians, the title to which remains with the United States, the occupants still being wards of the nation, and as such under its complete authority and protection. The fact remains that the improvements here in question are essentially a part of the lands, and their use by the Indians is necessary to effectuate the policy of the United States."

35 188 U. S. 432; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478; 47 L. ed. 532.

With reference to the personal property provided the allottees, the court declare: "The answer to this question is indicated by what has been said in reference to the assessment and taxation of the land and in the permanent improvements thereon. The personal property in question was purchased with the money of the government, and was furnished to the Indians in order to maintain them on the land allotted during the period of the trust estate, and to induce them to adopt the habits of civilized life. It was, in fact, the property of the United States, and was put into the hands of the Indians to be used in execution of the purpose of the government in reference to them. The assessment and taxation of the personal property would necessarily have the effect to defeat that purpose."

Finally, with reference to the question whether the United States had a sufficient interest in the matter to entitle it to bring suit, the opinion declares: "In view of the relation of the United States to the real and personal property in question, as well as to these dependent Indians still under national control, and in view of the injurious effect of the assessment and taxation complained of upon the plans of the government with reference to the Indians it is clear that the United States is entitled to maintain this suit No argument to establish that proposition is necessary."