Martier ngljt
Volume 2
Unalakleet, Alaska, March 1915
N umber 15
THE ESKIMO AND TAXATION
St. Michael, Alaska, Mar. 24, ’ 15.
Mr.K.K.Van Ness,
Unalakleet, Alaska.
Dear sir:
I11 reference to the article
published in the Northern Light for
which you request an answer,I will
state that there has been a great deal
of discussion on this subject,and
while some contend that natives
should not be allowed to vote,others
hold that they are citizens of the
United States, and as such are
entitled to the light of fianchise.
The treaty of Cession 1 etween
Russia and the united states by which
Alaska was ceded to the United states
provides in Article 111 under the
heading “Rights of Inhabitants in
ceded territoryas follows: “The
uncivilized tribes will be subject to
such laws and regulation as the
United state* may from time to time
adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes
of that country.”
This treaty was ratified and pro
clained Tuae 2a, 1867. Withieier
ence to the laws of the United States
governing the mend ers of aboriginal
tribes, we will start with the XIV
amendme.it to the Constitution of
the U S. which is in part as follows:
“Section 1. All persons born or
naturalized in the United .States, a id
subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside."
From the first glance at t h i s
amendment, it would appear that
the native born in any portion of the
United States whether white or Eski
mo or Indian, is a citizen, and as
such entitled to vote. The subject
has been much discussed in times
past in the states, however, and a
decision of the Supreme Court has
been handed down in the matter. I
am not prepared at this time to state
the title of that case which was taken
to the Supreme Court, but the
decision oi the Court was in effect
that the word jurisdiction as usedin
t li a t amendment, means the
co nplete political as well as Judicial
ju-isdictioa; and that while an Indain
might be a member of a dependant
ti i; e, he might at the same time be
a ne:nber of an alien tribe, owing
allegiance to atribal Chief, and
therefore not a citizen within the
meanig of the Fourteenth amend
me it to the Constitution.
Looking into the matter further,
we fi id, l think it was in the case of
Wilkins vs. Klk that the Supreme
Co irt decided that when an Indian
has severed his tribal relationship,
he becomes a citizen of the United
States automatically, with out any
formal process of naturalization.
My personal opinion is that the
Natives of Alaska, especially of this
coast region, owe no allegiance to
any tribal Chief, and therefore under
the decision above mentioned, they
are citizens of the United States.
The Natives in Kodiak and other
southeastern and western portions of
the territory have been allowed to
Continued on page ^