communicated to the Swiss government on May 30 following. The ratification of the additional act, signed at Brussels, December 14, 1900, was deposited at Brussels, May 3, 1901. Numerous special treaty stipulations for the protection of trade-marks have been concluded.' Under section I of the act of March 3, 1881,3 which provides that owners of trade-marks domiciled in the United States" or located in any foreign country or tribes which by treaty, convention or law, affords similar privileges to citizens of the United States, may obtain registration of such trade-marks" by complying with certain designated requirements, two agreements have been reached by exchange of notes, February 10 and 16, 1883, with the Netherlands, and April 27 and May 14, 1883, with Switzerland. A declaration for the reciprocal protection of trade-marks signed July 9-21, 1894, with the Greek government by Mr. Alexander, minister at Athens, was rejected by Mr. Gresham, who considered a formal convention to be submitted to the Senate to be necessary,5

(c) International Postal and Money Order Regulations. -Following the postal convention with Colombia of March 6, 1844, numerous other conventions of the same nature were concluded by the President and ratified with

1 Treaties and Conventions, p. 1168. Statutes 1902-3, p. 163. The following countries are at present also parties to the convention, and have signed the additional act: Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Tunis. The protection of the convention has been extended to numerous colonies and possessions of the different powers. Sen. Doc. 20, p. 6, 56th Cong. 2nd Sess.

2 See for list, ibid., pp. 40, 325-339.

'21 Stat. at L., 502.

'Sen. Doc. 20, pp. 334, 337, 56th Cong. 2nd Sess. For. Rel. 1895, pp. 759, 763, 765.

the consent of the Senate. By the act of June 8, 1872, the Postmaster-General is given the power to enter into money-order agreements with the post departments of foreign governments, and by and with the advice and consent of the President, to negotiate and conclude postal conventions. In virtue of this act, conventions of this class have been concluded by the Executive without submission to the Senate. Among these are the Universal Postal Conventions, signed at Vienna, July 4, 1891, and at Washington, June 15, 1897.3

(d) Relations with Indian Tribes.-From the first, our negotiations with the Indian tribes have been quite separate from those with foreign states. On July 12, 1775, three departments of Indian affairs-northern, southern and middle-were organized and the superintendence of each placed under commissioners. By the general ordinance for the regulation of Indian affairs of August 7, 1786, two districts were organized, the superintendents of which were placed under the immediate control of the Secretary of War. Treaties concluded through these agencies were transmitted to Congress for approval, publication and execution, but were not formally ratified. In the act of August 7, 1789, for the organization of the war department under the Constitution, the conduct of Indian affairs was recognized as belonging to the Secretary of War. Later it was transferred to the department of the interior. In the ap'Ex. Journal, vol. vi, p. 321; vol. viii, p. 17; vol. ix, p. 35; vol. xi, p. 563; vol. xii, pp. 116, 406.

'Sections 103 and 167, 17 Stat. at L., 297, 304.

28 Stat. at L., 1078. 30 Stat. at L., 1629.

Journals of Congress, vol. i, p. 162.

'Ibid., vol. x, p. 176.

See ibid., vol. x, pp. 195, 196; vol. xi, pp. 53, 55, 58, 61. 11 Stat. at L., p. 50.

proval of the Indian treaties, submitted by President Washington to the Senate, May 25, 1789, for advice and consent the first to be so submitted under the Constitution-the Senate simply advised the President "to execute and enjoin observance." The President in a message of September 17, objected to this form and suggested that he be advised to ratify as with other treaties. The committee appointed by the Senate to examine the question reported against a formal ratification, but the Senate complied with the suggestion by voting, September 22, to advise and consent to the ratification. This procedure was followed until 1871, during which period the Indian treaties are far more numerous than those with foreign powers. In the Indian appropriation act of March 3, 1871, it was enacted that thereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States should be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States might contract by treaty. The obligation of existing treaties was in no way to be impaired or invalidated by the act.3 No formal treaties with the Indians have since been made, but agreements with them have been laid before Congress for its approval.

The peculiar status of the Indian tribes was happily defined, in 1831, by Chief Justice Marshall as that of "domestic dependent nations." The Supreme Court has nevertheless ascribed the same sanctity to Indian treaties as to those with foreign powers, and has construed

1Ex. Journal, vol. i, pp. 25, 27, 28.

'Francis A. Walker, in The Making of the Nation, p. 106, states that prior to 1871, 382 Indian treaties had been concluded.

'16 Stat. at L., 506.

The Cherokee Nation rs. Georgia, 5 Pet., 17.

the provision of the Constitution declaring "treaties made" to be the supreme law of the land, as being applicable to those concluded with Indian tribes.'

(e) The Acquisition of Territory.-Although territory has usually been acquired by formal treaty, it has, under special circumstances, been acquired under an act of Congress. A treaty was signed at Washington, April 12, 1844, with the Republic of Texas, by which that republic conveyed and transferred to the United States all its rights of separate and independent sovereignty and jurisdiction. On June 8 the treaty was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 35 to 16.3 Three resolutions introduced by Mr. Benton, May 13, and discussed regularly until the final vote on the treaty, possibly express the reasons for the rejection. They declare that the ratification of the treaty would be the adoption by the United States of the Texan war; that the treaty-making power of the President and Senate did not include the power of making war, either by declaration or by adoption; and that the territory disincumbered from the United States by the treaty of 1819 ought to be united to the American Union as soon as it could be done with the consent of a majority of the people of the United States and of Texas, and when Mexico should either consent to the transfer or acknowledge the independence of Texas, or cease to wage war against her on a scale commensurate with the conquest of the country. While the last reason, which was political in its nature, was probably the most persuasive, the opinion that the ratification was tanta

'Worcester vs. State of Georgia, 6 Pet., 559.

The important acquisitions of 1803, 1819, 1848, 1853, 1867 and 1898 have been by means of formal treaties.

'Ex. Journal, vol. vi, p. 312.

• Ibid., p. 277.

mount to the adoption of a war with Mexico, and accordingly not within the province of the treaty-making power, was frequently expressed. In answer to an enquiry made by the Senate whether any military preparations had been made in anticipation of war, and if so for what cause and with whom was war apprehended, President Tyler stated in a message of May 15, 1844, that, in consequence of an announcement of Mexico declaring its determination to regard as a declaration of war the definitive ratification of the treaty of annexation, a portion of the naval and military forces had "as a precautionary measure" been assembled in the region of Texas. He observed further that the United States having by the treaty of annexation acquired a title to Texas, which required only the action of the Senate to perfect it, no other power could be permitted to invade and by force of arms possess itself of any portion of the territory of Texas, pending the deliberations of the Senate upon the treaty, without placing itself in a hostile attitude to the United States.' Immediately preceding the rejection of the treaty, a resolution was introduced by Mr. Henderson declaring that such annexation would be properly achieved on the part of the United States by an act of Congress admitting the people of Texas with defined boundaries as a new State into the Union on an equal footing with the other States. This course was followed, and on March 1, 1845, a joint resolution was approved consenting to the erection of the territory, rightfully belonging to the republic of Texas, into a new State. A proviso, attached through the efforts of Mr. Benton, gave the President opportunity, before communicating the resolution to Texas, to resort to negotiations upon 'Ibid., p. 311.

1

1 Ex. Journal, vol. vi, pp. 274, 276, 277, 279.