In 1884, in the case of Elk v. Wilkins,24 the question arose whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, became a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, by reason of his birth within the United States, and his afterward voluntarily separating himself from his tribe and taking up a. residence among white citizens. In declaring that he did not and could not thus become a citizen, the court said: "The alien and dependent condition of the members of the Indian tribes could not be put off at their own will, without the action or assent of the United States. They were never deemed citizens of the United States, except under explicit provisions of treaty or statute to that effect, either declaring a certain tribe, or such members of it as chose to remain behind on the removal of the tribe westward, to be citizens, or authorizing individuals of particular tribes to become citizens on application to a court of the United States for naturalization, and satisfactory proof of fitness for civilized life. . . . Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent power), although in a geographical sense horn in the United States, are no more ' born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that .government, or the children, born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. . . . Such Indians, then, not being citizens by birth, can only become citizens in the second way mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment, by being naturalized in the United States by or under some treaty or statute," 25

21.5 Wall. 761: 18 L. ed. 708. See post, p. 314, the case of United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478; 47 L. ed. 532.

22 People v. Antonio, 27 Cal. 404; Hunt v. State, 4 Kan. 60; United States v. Yellow Sun, 1 Dill. 271.

23 For a discussion of the reasonableness of this doctrine based upon the necessities of the case, see article in the American Law Review, XV, 21, entitled " The Legal Position of the Indians." by George F. Canfield.

24 112 U. 8. 04; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; 28 L. ed. 643.