Mr. HOWARD. It might, depending upon the construction which would happen to be given by the courts to the language of the constitution. The great objection, therefore, to the amendment is, that it is an actual naturalization, whenever the State sees fit to enact a natuialization law in reference to the Indians in the shn e of the imposition of a tax, of the whole In ian population within their limits. There is no evading this consequence, but still I caunot iinpute to the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin a purpOse like that. I think he has misapprehended the effect of the language which he suggests. I think the language as it stands is sufficiently certain and exact. It is that “all persons born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens o the U.S and of the State wherein they reside.” I concur entirely with the honorable Senfrom Illinois, in holding that the word “jurisdiction, ” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the U.S., coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the U.S., whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial dept; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the U.S. now. Certain], gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits ot a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been adjudicated, so far as the usage of the Gorcrnmentis concerned. The Government of the U.S. have always regarded and treated the Indian tribes within our limits as foreign Powers, so far as the treaty making1 power is concerned, and so far especially as the commercial power is concerned, for in the very Constitution itself there is a provision that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce, not only with forei u nations and among the States, but also with t ic Indian tribes. That clause, in my judgment, presents a full and complete recognition of the national character of the Indian tribes, the same character in which they have been recognized ever since the discovery of the continent and its occupation b civilized men; the same light in which the ndians were viewed and treated by GreatBritain from the earliest commencement of the settlement of the continent. They have always been regarded, even in our ante revolutionary history, as being independent nations, with whom the other nations of the earth have held treaties, and in no case, I believe, has either the Government of GreatBritain or of the U.S. recognized the right of an individual Indian to transfer or convey lands. Why? If he was a citizen, in other words, ifhe was not a subjectof a foreign Power, if he did not belong to a tribe whose common law is that land as well as almost every other description of property shall be held in common among the members of the tribe, subject to a chief, why is it that the reservation has been imposed and always observed upon the act of conveyance on the part of the Indian? A passage has been read from an opinion given by Mr. AttyGen Cushing on this subject, in which, it seems to me, he takes great liberties with the Constitution in speaking of the Indian as being a subject of the U.S. Certainly I do not so bold I cannot so bold, because it has been the be it of the Government from the beginning to treat with the Indian tribes as sovereign Powers. The Indians are our wards. such is the language of the courts. They have a national independence. They have an absolute right to the occu nncy of the soil upon which the reside; an the only ground of claim which the U.S. has ever put forth to the proprietorship of the soil of an Indian territory is simply the right of preemption; that is, the right of the U.S. to be the 1st purchaser from the Indian tribes. We have always recognized in an Indian tribe the same sovereignty over the soil which it occupied as we recognize in a foreign nation of a power in itself overits national, ( or The sell th lands to us by treaty, and they s as the sovereign Power owning, holding, and occupy ingtifi: ands. But it is useless, it seems to me, Mr. President, to enlarge further upon the question of the real political power of ndiuns or of Indian tribes. Our legislation has always recognized them as sovereign Powers. The Indian who is still counccte by his tribal relation with the government of his tribe is subject for crimes committed against the laws or usages of the tribe to the tribe itself, and not to any foreign or other tribunal. I believe that has been the uniform course of decision on that subject. The U.S. courts have no power to punish an Indian who is connectedwith a tribe for a crime committed by him upon another member of the same tribe.