I9I2.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 353 



The decree was reversed without prejudice. The language of Mr. 

 Chief Justice Marshah is not properly to be called dicta. If a good 

 ground for rescission appeared in the record, reversal would not 

 have been proper, even though the court below had placed its decision 

 on the wrong ground. And the reference to the fact of alienage not 

 being proved, is immaterial ; it was alleged and might have been 

 proved on the second trial. 



The case of Worcester vs. The State of Georgia--^ is one of 

 both historical and constitutional importance. The Creek and Cher- 

 okee Indians occupied territory within the State of Georgia under a 

 series of treaties recognizing their rights to such territory. The 

 State determined to acquire these Indian lands. By its governor, 

 supported in large measure by the legislature, it was maintained that 

 the sovereign rights of the State of Georgia absolutely forbade any 

 Federal interference with the expulsion of the Indians, although 

 such expulsion were contrary to the treaty provisions. An indi- 

 vidual had committed a murder within the Indian territory, and had 

 been convicted in the State court, and condemned to death, A writ of 

 error was issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. This 

 was disregarded, and sentence was executed. Under this existing 

 situation the case of Worcester vs. The State of Georgia reached the 

 Supreme Court. The decision rendered therein established the 

 jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States to examine 

 on writ of error the criminal process of a State and to set free a 

 person convicted under the laws of that State on the ground that 

 such laws were repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of 

 the United States. Above all, it determined that treaties with 

 Indian tribes came within the constitutional powers. It has signifi- 

 cance for us here. The Cherokee Indians occupied a portion of 

 Georgia. The State passed an act forbidding any one under criminal 

 penalties to reside in that land without a license from the governor 

 of the State or his agent. Worcester was indicted under this act. 

 He pleaded the provision of the treaties of the United States with 

 the Indians and of an Act of Congress, and that the Georgia statute 

 was unconstitutional and void, being in conflict therewith. His con- 



^"6 Peters, 515 (1832). 



