66 ordinary course of justice in the collection of debts "heretofore created; provided, that the prohibition of "this section shall not apply to cases in which the right "to hold or dispose of lands in the United States is "secured by existing treaties to the citizens or subjects "of foreign countries, which rights, so far as they may exist by force of any such treaty, shall continue to "exist so long as such treaties are in force, and no "longer. "SEC. 2. That no corporation or association more "than twenty per centum of the stock of which is or "may be owned by any person or persons, corporation "or corporations, association or associations, not citi zens of the United States, shall hereafter acquire, or "hold, or own any real estate hereafter acquired in any "of the territories of the United States or of the District "of Columbia." By section four the attorney-general is directed to enforce the forfeitures provided for by the act, by bill in equity or other proper process. Whatever legislation theretofore existed in any of the territories upon the subject of alienage, it became inoperative and ineffectual, and thenceforward had no potential existence. Since the passage of this act, all of the then organized territories except New Mexico and Arizona have been admitted into the union. Unquestionably, the alien act of 1887 remained in force in these territories until the act of 1897 was passed. The act of March 3, 1887, was amended by an act approved March 2, 1897,1 (except in so far as it applied to the District of Columbia). The latter act remodels the original act, and while providing that, except in certain cases, no alien or person who had not declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States should acquire title to or own any land in any of the territories of the United States, contained the following clauses: 129 Stats., p. 618. Lindley on M.-27 66 "This act shall not be construed to prevent any persons not citizens of the United States from acquiring or holding lots or parcels of land in any incorporated "or platted city, town, or village, or in any mine or "mining claim in any of the territories of the United "States."1 "This act shall not in any manner be construed. "to authorize aliens to acquire title from the United "States to any public lands in the United States, or to "in any manner affect or change the laws regulating "the disposal of the public lands of the United "States."2 This, in our judgment, makes the last clause of section twenty-three hundred and twenty-six of the Revised Statutes-"Nothing herein contained shall be construed "to prevent the alienation of a title conveyed by a patent "to any person whatever"-operative in the territories as well as in the states.3 The rights of aliens which have been secured by treaty are protected, as well as the rights acquired by aliens prior to the original act, and the rights of bona fide resident aliens. No reference whatever is made in the act of 1897 to corporations. The provisions contained in the act of 1887 having been omitted, corporations organized under the laws of any state or territory may purchase lands in the territories regardless of the citizenship of the stockholders. A full copy of the act of 1897 will be found in the appendix. Did the act of 1887 apply to Alaska? The act prohibited persons not citizens or who have not lawfully declared their intention to become such, and corporations not created by or under the laws of some state or territory of the United States, from hereafter Act of March 2, 1897, § 3. 2 Id., § 7. See Opinion of Attorney-General, 28 L. D. 178. acquiring, holding, or owning real estate so hereafter acquired, or any interest therein, in any of the territories of the United States or in the District of Columbia. Was Alaska a territory at the time this act was passed, within the meaning of the law? Popularly, it has never been so considered. By the act of July 27, 1868,1 it was created a customs district, and called the District of Alaska. It has been referred to in some of the legislation of congress as an unorganized territory. By the act passed March 17, 1884, entitled "An act providing a "civil government for Alaska," it was created a civil, judicial, and land district, and throughout the entire act it is referred to and denominated as a district. This act does not clothe the "district" with legislative functions. It establishes a temporary seat of government at Sitka, and authorizes the appointment of a governor, district judge, and minor officers. The general laws of the state of Oregon in force at the date of the passage of the act are declared to be the law in said district, so far as the same may be applicable and not in conflict with the provisions of the act or the laws of the United States. It is expressly provided that nothing contained in the act should put in force in said district the general land laws of the United States. But the laws relating to mining claims and rights incident thereto were declared thenceforward to be in force in said district. These laws, as we have heretofore observed, embody a provision that nothing therein contained should be construed to prevent the alienation of a title conveyed by a patent for a mining claim to any person whatever." This was the political status of Alaska when the alien act was passed in 1887, and is substantially its status at the present time. The acts of 1899 and 1900 providing 115 Stats. at Large, p. 240. See, ante, § 237. for the punishment of crime in Alaska, and providing for the civil government thereof, refer to Alaska as "district."1 Was it included within the designation "territories" mentioned in the alien act of 1887? We are of opinion that it was not. We think we are materially aided in this view by a decision of the supreme court of the United States with reference to that portion of Indian territory now known as Oklahoma, prior to its organization into a territory. The decision referred to was based upon the following state of facts: On February 9, 1889, congress passed an act 2 providing: 66 "That every person who shall carnally and unlawfully know any female under the age of sixteen years, "or who shall be accessory to such carnal and unlawful knowledge before the fact in the District of Columbia "or other place, except the territories, over which the "United States has exclusive jurisdiction, . . . shall "be guilty of a felony." The accused was charged with having committed the offense within that part of Indian territory commonly known as Oklahoma. He was tried and convicted, and applied to the supreme court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus, his counsel contending that Oklahoma was a territory within the exception of the act of congress, and that the trial court was without jurisdiction. The supreme court, in denying the writ, thus expressed its views: "We think the words 'except the territories' have "reference exclusively to that system of organized gov"ernment long existing within the United States by "which certain regions of the country have been erected "into civil governments. These governments have an "executive, a legislative, and a judicial system. They "have the powers which all these departments of gov 130 Stats. at Large, p. 1253; 31 Stats. at Large, p. 321. 66 66 66 "ernment have exercised, which are conferred upon "them by act of congress, and their legislative acts are subject to the disapproval of the congress of the "United States. . . . It is this class of governments, long known by the name of territories, that the act of congress excepts from the operations of this statute. Oklahoma was not of this class of territories. "It had no legislative body. It had no government. "It had no established or organized system of govern"ment for the control of the people within its limits, as the territories of the United States have, and always have had. We are therefore of opinion that the "objection taken on this point by the counsel for the 66 prisoner is unsound."1 Suppose the crime in question had been committed in Alaska. Is there any reason for holding that a valid conviction could not have been had for lack of jurisdiction? It seems to us that the inference is logically deducible that the alien act of 1887 under consideration was not applicable to Alaska, and that after patent the patentee might transfer his title to "any person whatever." The act of 1897,2 which superseded the former act, does not prohibit the acquisition by aliens of patented mining ground in the territories, and therefore need not be discussed in this connection. This act, of course, applies to unpatented mining claims only. Unpatented mining claims in the territories may be acquired only by the persons authorized to acquire them in the states. In 1898, congress accorded native-born citizens of the dominion of Canada the same mining rights and privileges in the district of Alaska accorded to citizens of the United States in British Columbia and the Northwest territory, with the proviso that such Canadian citizens 1 In re Lane, 135 U. S. 443, 447, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 760. Opinion, 28 L. D. 178. 3 |