
    JAMES S. VALK, Survivor, Etc., v. THE UNITED STATES AND THE ROGUE RIVER INDIANS.
    [29 C. Cls. R., 62.
    Not reported in U. S. R.]
    
      On the claimant’s Appeal.
    
    The facts show that the claimants at the time the depredations were committed were subjects of the King of Hanover, and entitled by. the treaty 1847 to “free aceess to the tribunals of justice in their litigious affairs on the same terms which are granted by the laxo and usages of the country to the native citizens.’’
    
    The court below decides:
    1. In the Indian depredation act, 1891, citizenship and amity relate to the same time. Hostile Indians were not to be made liable for past deprodations by subsequently becoming “in amity,” nor wore aliens to acquire new rights by subsequently becoming citizens.
    2.- The omission of the term “inhabitants,” used in qn-evious acts relating to Indian depredations, was regarded as significant by the Interior Department; and its construction of the act 1885 was adopted by Congress in the act 1891. .
    3. A declaration to become a citizen did not make an alien a citizen within the intent of the act of 1891.
    4. The treaty with Hanover 1847 refers only to ordinary litigation, and does not extend to the subsequent right of litigation against the Government.
    5. A treaty provision assuring to aliens “free access to the tribunals of justice” does not prevent this Government from giving subsequently special rights of action to its own citizens against itself to the exclusion of aliens.
    6. A treaty is evidence of amity, in connection with other facts and circumstances, but is not conclusive.
    7. War supersedes treaties, and makes the subjects of contending sover-eignties enemies in law.
    
      8. The Indian depredation act was framed in accordance with the general policy of all governments, not to pay for property destroyed in war.
    October 18, 1897,
   The decision of the court below is affirmed

without an opinion being rendered.  