網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Removal of the Indians.

degree upon assumptions for which I discover no founda

tion.

[H. OF R.

States had engaged to extinguish the Indian titles for her. have it," but that she will not resort to violence" until She says, expressly, "that the land is hers, and she will other means have failed." Other means, then, it seems, are first to be tried; and, if they fail, the obvious consequence is, that she will resort to violence. Now, what are these other means? The gentleman from Georgia has told us, that, after having long exercised great forbearance, Georgia has, at length, caught a gleam of hope from the elevation of our present Chief Magistrate, and the recognition by him of her long delayed rights. Give me leave to tell the gentleman that the president has never recog nised the rights which Georgia claims, unless the right of jurisdiction, which the President admits to be in Georgia, be equivalent to the right of soil which Georgia claims unless it give also a title to the land; for this she is to get by violence, if other means fail,

ever said that Georgia meant to resort to violence in any [Here Mr. LUMPKIN interposed, and denied that he had

he is not authorized to speak as to what Georgia will or Sir, I did not charge this language upon that gentleman; will not do. The language I have cited, and the principles avowed, are to be found in a report and resolutions adopted by the Legislature of that State in 1827; they are the solemn declarations by the State of the policy which she means to pursue. The gentleman said, to be sure, that perhaps the language of that report was too strong; and probably the State of Georgia will say the same thing now. Why? Because she feels sure of getting the laud without successful. Is it not apparent that the object of extending violence. Other means are in progress, which must be her laws over the Indians is to drive them across the Mississippi? And now they tell us that no compulsion is contemplated. Sir, if compulsion is not contemplated to be practised, it is contemplated to be permitted. The Indians tell us that they cannot remain under the laws of Georgia; and the President himself, and the Secretary of War, say, in so many words, to the Indians, that their only means of escaping this dreadful calamity is to emigrate to the West. The tenor of all the language employed proceeds upon the idea that it is a calamity which they cannot endure. And this is no new idea. A gentleman, not now a member of Congress, has truly said "that such a measure must prove this House, in a report made upon this subject to a former destructive to the Indians."

But the gentlemen inquire why any opposition should be made to the bill, which contemplates only the voluntary removal of the Indians; and they complain of great misrepresentation on the part of those who oppose it, because they hold out the idea that force is to be used, and they strenuously deny that such a purpose is cherished in any quarter. Now, sir, if the gentleman had confined his denial to the intentions of the Government of the United States, it is very possible he may be correct. I do not know that the administration means to employ any force; but if that gentleman meant to assert that the Indians within the limits of Georgia are not to be operated upon in a compulsory manner, from some other quarters, I do not assent to his position. I believe they are. It may not, to be sure, be by an army in the field, advancing to the sound of drum, with banners displayed, to drive them from their homes, at the point of the bayonet. But, sir, is there no compulsion except military compulsion? Can men be co-case.] erced by nothing but guns and bayonets! I say that those Indians are not to be left in circumstances where they can act in an unconstrained and voluntary manner. And when the gentleman inquires why we oppose the bill, I tell him because it does not provide for the exigency of the case. It does not provide for the security and protection of the Indians in their possessions and rights. It does not answer their demands upon us. Though this bill professes in itself nothing hostile, yet, if its effect will be to leave the Indians in circumstances where they can make but one choice, then it is clear that they are compelled. is compulsion, but placing men in circumstances where For what they have no alternative left them! The gentleman affects to be greatly amazed that we do not at once assent to his bill. But supposing that the bill shall pass, and the Indians shall not choose to leave their homes, I ask the gentleman, will they be left in the same situation in which they have hitherto been placed? Will they be permitted to enjoy the undisturbed possession of their soil and jurisdiction? and no external bias or oppression is to be brought to bear upon them, and they shall be left perfectly free and independent, as they were left when previous laws have been passed, relating to the removal to which the gentleman has referred, then I am content. to say. But it is not so; and the gentleman knows it is not We have not a word 30. He says no force is to be applied. Oh, no. Only the laws of Georgia are to be extended over them! No force. Their ancient customs, laws, usages, are to be abolished-rights of Georgia, as Georgia lays them down. What is I have said that the president had not recognised the their council fires are to be extinguished their existence his language? He says, through the Secretary of War, as a political community to be annihilated. Sir, in what to a delegation of Cherokees," an interference to the exmanner has this subject been brought before us! The tent of affording you protection, and the occupancy of President, to be sure, has called our attention to it in his your soil, is what is demanded of the justice of this counmessage, and recommends the measure proposed in this try, and will not be withheld." It seems, then, that they bill. But, beside this, we have urgent memorials from the are to remain in the occupancy of their soil. But this is Creeks and Cherokees, reminding us of our treaties and not compatible with the claims of Georgia, Where does our engagements to them, and demanding the fulfilment of the gentleman discover his ray of hope, but in the assurthose stipulations. What answer do we propose to give?ance that the operation of the laws of Georgia will compel They ask, will you perform your engagements! We re- the Indians to abandon their country?" ply, we will help you to remove farther into the wilderness. Is this such a reply as we are bound to give? They and says that it is no great hardship for the ludians to be The chairman of the committee takes the same ground, tell us they wish to remain and to be protected, where brought under the laws of the State, in as much as they will they now are; and I object to the bill because it does not still enjoy their own lands;" and "as it is understood" that furnish this protection. For what purpose does Georgia the States do not contemplate to take the land away from extend her laws over these Indians, but for compelling the Indians by force, there can be no harm in passing this them to remove? To enable her to get possession of the bill. I do not know whence the gentleman derives this land? What does Georgia gain by legislating over these " Indians, unless it be their lands? We all know the nature I understand that the States do meau to have the land. It understanding." I, for one, understand no such thing. of the claim which Georgia sets up-that the soil of the is the land they want: Georgia claims by the compact of Indian country belongs to her-that its jurisdiction is in 1802, that the Indian title shall be extinguished, in order her-that the Indians are tenants at her will, whom she that the land may come into her possession. Has she ever may at any time remove-that, before the compact of 1802, claimed the mere sovereignty, as such? Never-but alshe had a right at any time to take the land by force, and ways the land. When, therefore, the honorable chairman that she has hitherto forborne ouly because the United says "it is understood," I say that it is not understood,

If 80,1

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

General Carroll to the Secretary of War, describing the difficulties he met with in inducing the Indians to emigrate, says, "The truth is, they rely with great confidence on a favorable report on the petition they have before Congress. If that is rejected, and the laws of the States are enforced, you will have no difficulty of procuring an exchange of lands with them."

General Coffee, upon the same subject, says "They express a confident hope that Congress will interpose its power, and prevent the States from extending their laws over them. Should they be disappointed in this, I hazard little in saying that the Government will have little diffi culty in removing them west of the Mississippi."

[MAY 18, 1830.

and that it cannot be understood, from the public acts of ty of Holston was formed; which was also “a treaty of the State. Is there any man on this floor entitled to speak peace and friendship." The tribe again placed itself unin the name of a sovereign, independent State, as to what der the protection of the United States, and "of no other she will or what she will not do? And this, when she tells sovereign whatever," and stipulated that they would not us that the land is hers, and that she “will have it,” though treat with any foreign power, individual State, or with inshe will not resort to violence until other means fail. dividuals of any State." A liberal session of territory was These other means are her laws. If she extends them made to he United States; and the United States, by the over the Indians, and the Indians still remain where they seventh article, " solemnly guarantied to the Cherokee naare, then, clearly, the other means will have failed; and tion all their lands not hereby ceded. Various other trea then, if we may believe her own words, she does mean to ties have been made since that time, by which a large resort to violence. When the gentleman therefore says territory has been acquired, and renewed guaranties given. that it is with great satisfaction he observes that the Pre-These treaties have been negotiated by every administrasident recognises the rights of Georgia, I tell him the Pre- tion, except the last-have been confirmed by every sident does no such thing, and that Georgia will be as lit-Senate, and approved and sanctioned by every House of tle satisfied with this Executive as she was with the last, Representatives in the appropriations they have made to if he protects the Indians on any terms in the occupancy carry them into effect. of their lands. Sir, I have been endeavoring to show that By these treaties we have recognized the Cherokees as the object and intention of Georgia, in extending her juris-a "nation "-a political community, capable to contract, diction over the Indian tribes, is to compel them to re- and to be contracted with. We have received them unmove. Such will be its effect. Upon this subject, hear der our protection and sovereignty, aud prohibited them the commissioners who were sent last year to negotiate from treating with any " individual State," or placing them with the Indians for their removal: selves" under any other sovereign whatever." We have admitted their title to the lande in their occupaney-bave paid them for the cessions they have made, and solemnly gusrantied to them "their lands." Yes, sir," their lands," which had not been ceded. All these rights they claim of the United States by virtue of treaties still subsisting. But we are told that they are not a nation or community, and the laws of Georgia have abrogated and dissolved their political character, and incorporated them as citizens of the State, subject to its laws. The party with whom we contracted is annihilated. This is the first infraction of which they complain. They are now claimed as under the sove reignty of Georgia alone, though we had received them under our sovereignty, and guarantied to them our protection. Of these they also complain as a violation of our treaties. The lands which they occupy are denied to be theirs; and Georgia says "she will have them." How does this claim comport with the obligations we have en tered into Our stipulation with the Indians is, that they are a distinct community, and have the power of holding their own land. This guaranty is about to be violated, and we are called upon to sit still and see it violated. Sir, I could go further. The guaranty in the treaty of I shall proceed now, sir, to consider the general subject Holston is a guaranty to the Indians as a nation. No indiof our relations to some of the Indian tribes who are to be vidual ownership is therein recognised; and when indiaffected by this bill, and who have invoked our protec viduals leave the tracts on which they have resided, those tion; the obligations we have entered into with them; the tracts revert, not to the United States, nor to the Governclaims they have upon us; and the duties which we are ment, nor to anybody else but to the nation as a nation. But bound, by the most solemn stipulations, to perform toward this bill contemplates a separate negotiation with individuthem. In this question are involved the rights of Georgia, als, and declares that all the land abandoned by individuas a member of the Union, and the powers of the Gene- als who become emigrants, reverts not to their tribe, but ral Government over Indian tribes resident within the bor- to the State of Georgia. We are called to pass a law exders of a State. These topics have already been so fully changing land with private individuals, when we have and ably discussed elsewhere, and so eloquently and ela- guarantied the possession of that land to the Cherokee borately debated here by the honorable member from nation, as common property; so that we are not only to New York, [Mr. STORBS] that I am sensible very little re-stand by, and see Georgia violate our faith, but to pass a mains to be said. I shall endeavor, as far as possible, to bill-which very bill expressly violates it. The President avoid the repetition of arguments and authorities which tells us, Georgia had a right at any time to extend her have been used by others much more ably than I could laws over the Indians within her limits, and says that her hope to do. Our relations with the Indian tribes upon doing so will be no violation of our guaranty. But I ask whom this bill is designed to operate, grow out of trea- whether the laws of Georgia do not annihilate the party ties entered into between them and the Government we contracted with. Georgia comes in, and says that all of the United States. With the Cherokees, who are laws, customs, and usages of the Indians as a nation, more directly concerned in this question than either of the shall be utterly obliterated. When this has been done, other tribes, we have negotiated not less than sixteen. where, I ask, is the party with whom we contracted! The first was that of Hopewell, in 1785, entered into by I ask Georgia to show us the community with which we Congress under the articles of confederation. This was a have entered into engagements. They will tell me there treaty of peace, and terminated a war which had existed is no such party. The nation, as such, ceases to exist. between them and the United States. The Cherokees But what has caused it to cease? The laws of Georgia placed themselves under the protection of the United It is those laws that have violated our stipulation, and ut States, and "of no other sovereign whatever." After terly annihilated the very party with whom we stipulated. the adoption of the federal constitution in 1791, the trea- It seems to me the gentlemen get into a dilemma—the

I think it can require no further proof to satisfy us that the legislation of Georgia is designed, and will have the certain effect, to coerce the Indian tribes, and to compel them to seek a new home beyond the reach of the avidity and oppression of the white man, if such a spot remains to them of all their once vast domains. Yet we are told that this removal is to be purely voluntary; and gentlemen point us to the bill, and say, there is no compulsion there. No, sir; and there is no protection there.

MAY 18, 1830.]

Removal of the Indians.

[H. OF R.

ground they take is, that Georgia has a right to abolish | by virtue of the compact of 1802. The lands in Alabama the tribe, and to resolve it into its elements-as individuals, upon the extinguishment of the Indian title, belonged to sitizens of the State. Well, sir, grant this, and what then the United States, while those in Georgia, agreeably to Then they bring in a bill to enable the President to hold our engagements in the compact, belonged to that State. treaties-but with whom? With the tribe of Indians? These treaties became the subject of discussion in the SeWith the Cherokee nation? Why, sir, that tribe is abolish-nate; and I will read a short passage from the debate: Mr. ed-there is no Cherokee nation. With whom, then, is the Benton, of Missouri, said "he thought that Georgia had no President to make a treaty With the Indians convened further cause of dissatisfaction with the treaty; it was Alain council? Sir, they cannot convene the laws of Geor- bama that was injured by the loss of some millions of acres, gia forbid it, and subject them to imprisonment and pun- which she had acquired under the treaty of 1825, and lost shment if they do. They dare not assemble to treat, and under that of 1826." "She had lost the right of jurisdicFet the President is to hold a treaty with them? If the tion over a considerable extent of territory"-lost the right rentleman's positions are true, he will have nobody to treat of jurisdiction. So, sir, the doctrine then was, that right vith. Not with individuals-that is in the very face of of jurisdiction was acquired by treaty; and when the treaty our contract. I refer gentlemen to the treaty of Holston, was rescinded, the right of jurisdiction fell with it. Mr. vhere the guaranty is to the nation. King, of Alabama, said: "The constitutional question, as regards Georgia, yet remains in force; and though it may not seem to apply to Alabama, I still think our rights were violated in annulling that treaty and adopting another." Now, the rights which Alabama acquired under that treaty were merely rights of jurisdiction: the soil passed to the United States. If, therefore, the complaint of the Senator was well founded, it was the right of jurisdiction which was taken away by the last treaty. If Alabama lost any rights by the abrogation of the first compact, it was that of jurisdiction. Yet the argument now is, that the State always had jurisdiction anterior to all treaties, and by virtue of it her laws have been extended over the whole Indian country. But, sir, there is a more direct renunciation of this doctrine still.

But we learn, as I have already had occasion to remark, hat the construction which the President places upon hese treaty stipulations is not "adverse to the sovereignty -f Georgia." While he admits the Indians to have a just ight to the occupancy of the lands, he denies to them the ight of jurisdiction and government over their territory. Sir, have we not received those tribes under our protecion, and refused to permit them to become subject "to ny other sovereign whatever?" Is this not "adverse to he sovereignty of Georgia!" The idea of separating the urisdiction of a nation from the territory which it owns as nation, is a modern discovery. And I yield so far to the rgument of gentlemen on the other side, as to admit that e discoverer, whoever he may be, is entitled to the full redit and benefit of the discovery. Such was not the In the session of 1826, a Senator from Mississippi [Mr. octrine of Georgia in 1825. In the discussions which then REED] moved a resolution of inquiry into the expediency ok place between her Chief Magistrate (Governor Troup) of authorizing process, both civil and criminal, to be serv nd the Secretary of War, in relation to the treaty of the ed upon persons, citizens of the States, who had fled to the adian Springs, the former said, "soil and jurisdiction go Indian territory for protection. The resolution proposed gether; and if we have not the right of both at this no other action than upon citizens of the United States. In oment, we can never have either by better title. If the explanation of his views, Mr. REED said, "he presumed it solute property and the absolute jurisdiction have not was already known that more than half of the State of Misassed to us, when are they to come? Will you make a sissippi is still in the occupation of the Indian tribes, the rmal concession of the latter? When and how? If the Choctaw aud Chickasaw nations. In regard to the action risdiction be separated from the property, show the re- of the State laws upon these people, there never had been rvation which separates it: it is impossible." any difficulty, nor was it ever sought, on the part of the The argument then was, that jurisdiction was acquired State of Mississippi, to extend its jurisdiction over them." y treaty, as well as soil. The argument now is, that ju- His object was to call the serious consideration of the sdiction always belonged to the State, and that compact Senate to the condition of our own citizens, who, after not necessary to confer it. The Governor inquired having committed crimes, or contracted debts, locate them. hen and how you could obtain jurisdiction, if separated selves among those Indians, and consider themselves as beom the property, and declared that it was impossible. yond the jurisdiction of our laws."

[ocr errors]

"He re

*

r, the doctrines then relied upon for the promotion of peated, it was not sought, on the part of the State of Mise interests of Georgia, are in direct collision with the sissippi, or by her Senators in this House, to enforce the etrines now advocated for her benefit. Will she pre-action of the laws on the Indians themselves; they did not rve consistencey, or must new principles of law and right claim to consider them as subject to their operation. The e discovered at every new emergency? The honorable | Indian tribes have laws and traditionary usages of their airman, [Mr. BELL] in his report upon this subject, says, own, and are entitled to the patronage and protection of The fundamental principle, that the Indians had no the General Government.” ghts, by virtue of their ancient possessions, either of soil "At present, as far as he had been able to investigate Sovereignty, has never been abandoned, either expressly the subject, it was the opinion of some able jurists on this by implication."Sir, it might be answer enough to point, that process does not extend to persons residing on y that this principle has never been asserted, and to call the Indian territory-and he would wish to bring to the on gentlemen to prove its existence by other means consideration of the legislative authority of the Union, the an the absence of an abandonment of it. But, as the question whether it is competent for us to extend our civil entleman has chosen to state the proposition in this form, and criminal process, or whether it is one of the appendwill endeavor to show that it has been expressly aban- ages-one of these people's rights as sovereigns, to afford ned, and by some of the States which are most inter- a sanctuary to vagabonds from every part of the Union." ted in the passage of this bill. By the treaty of the dian Springs, in 1825, with the Creek nation, all their "At the last session of the Legislature of Mississippi, a nd in Georgia, and a considerable portion of that in Ala- proposition was made to extend the civil power of their ma, was ceded to the United States. This treaty was courts to their own citizens who had contracted debts nulled in 1826, for gross fraud and corruption, and a new within the State, and had fled to this savage sanctuary; enty formed, ceding the lands in Georgia, but not those the matter was debated for many days, and it was at last Alabama. These States protested against rescinding decided that there existed no power in the State to extend e first treaty, because, as was contended, Georgia bad its laws in the manner sought by the proposition." quired vested rights under it; the property in the soil," Therefore, if there was any remedy on this subject to VOL. VI.-131.

*

*

*

*

H. or R.]

Removal of the Indians.

[MAY 18, 1830

be obtained, it was to be at the bands of the General Go-Joue was the consideration for the other. Shall we restore vernment, and not by force of any competent authority in the State Government."

[ocr errors]

hood"-by permitting them to be driven into the recesses of the forests, to become the prey of more barbarous EStions. And this we call compensation.

them to their original condition? Shall we re-cede the territory? Gentlemen have foreseen the difficulty, and I think it sufficiently appears from the extracts I have they say, as we cannot give back the land, we will make read, that the State of Mississippi, so deeply interested in compensation; and what is the compensation which they this question, and so anxious to maintain all its rights, has propose? It is, that we should say to these Indians, move wholly repudiated, both by its Senators in Congress, and farther off-leave us-cross the Mississippi-go to the by its Legislature, the doctrine which the chairman asserts Rocky Mountains. This is our will, and you must obey. has never been abandoned." Jurisdiction, in its most Sir, it requires two parties to make a contract, and the Inample extent, is hereby conceded to the Indians; and if dians do not agree to this mode of compensation. They that State has more recently, under the auspices of the tell us it is inflicting a deeper injury still. And now, sir. present Executive, adopted a different course, and obtain- when we are about to compensate them for a violation of ed new views of its rights, it remains for it to justify its our faith, we propose to do it not as they will, but as we course to an enlightened public opinion, and to the seru-will-by withholding "our aid and our good neighbortiny of the world. But, sir, by the eleventh article of the treaty of Holston, we have expressly recognised the Cherokee country not to be within the jurisdiction of any State. That article provides, that if any crime be committed within their territory, by a citizen of the United States, which "if committed within the jurisdiction of any State," would be punishable by the laws of such State, it shall be proceeded against in the same manner as if the offence had been committed "within the jurisdiction of the State, &c. Can any thing be more manifest than that the Indian territory was not to be deemed within the jurisdiction of the State? This is, in truth, a guaranty on our part that we will not invade their jurisdiction. And we are now to be told that we have given no guaranty "adverse to the sovereignty of Georgia?" Sir, is it becoming a great and magnanimous nation to fritter away its obligations-to search for nice distinctions and refined casuistry, to justify its violations of faith? I have been attempting to show, sir, that the idea of separating the right of jurisdiction from the right of soil is novel and unfounded; and that by our stipulations the right of jurisdic tion is fully conceded to the Indian tribes within their own territories. If I have succeeded in this, it will hardly be contended that the soil is not theirs also. Indeed, I do not understand that the Executive or the committee assume the position that they have not a right to the occupancy of their lands, however Georgia may assert the contrary, and claim them as exclusively her own. It will not, therefore, be necessary for me to discuss the question, what rights have the Indians to their lands, more especially as the gentleman from New York [Mr. STORRS] has done it with so much ability.

[ocr errors]

But why had we no right to enter into the stipulations Gentlemen tell us that we are thereby erecting a State within the limits of another State, against the consent of the latter, which is expressly interdicted in the constitu tion. Sir, I deny the fact. I deny that, by any thing in the treaties, we do erect or form another State. If these Indian tribes are a State now, they were a State before. They obtain no additional authority from the treaty. They derive from it no political existence. The treaty merely recognised that which had existence at the time it was made. It gave the Indians nothing. They were as much a State before as they are now. But I ask, what is the true meaning of that term in the constitution! The State" there mentioned, means a member of this eofederacy-a State having all the prerogatives, and bound by all the obligations, which that instrument contained— that shall have representatives on this floor and in the Senate, and should have a voice in the election of Presi dent. The clause is simply a limitation of the power of Congress in the admission of new States into the Union Sir, do we admit a new State into the Union when we ac knowledge the Cherokees as an independent tribe! Do we restrict them as the constitution restricts the States of this Union? Do we confer powers and privileges which that instrument confers? We do not. When I heard gentlemen urge this objection, and talk about erecting a State within the limits of another State, I was astonished. It may be proper enough to call the Cherokees a "State" if we affix to that word some other meaning than it bears in the constitution; but " State," as there used, meats neither more nor less than a member of the Union It is said, however, that these Cherokees are forming The gentleman who last addressed the committee, [Mr. Government, and are taking rapid strides to power. Th FOSTER] Seems to be aware that the obligations and gua- position is equally untrue. They have not formed a Ge ranties contained in our treaties do, in truth, conflict with vernment. They always had a Government. They were the pretensions of Georgia; and he assumes the position ruled by councils, and by traditionary laws; and all they that they are, therefore, unconstitutional and void. The have done is to put that which was formerly oral only, int same sentiment is advanced by the President, and by the a written form. This may be improving their Govern Committee on Indian Affairs, if the meaning aud construc- ment, but it is not creating it, nor assuming any new tion of the treaties are such as we have endeavored to main- power. They disclaim such an idea. But it is said the tain. The ground taken is, that the United States had no this recognition is inconsistent with the sovereignty as right to enter into stipulations inconsistent with the sove- jurisdiction of Georgia. Do not gentlemen perceive tha reignty of Georgia: that we are under obligations to her this argument assumes the whole question? The very which we must first discharge. Now, sir, it comes with question is, whether the sovereignty and jurisdiction of an exceeding ill grace from us, when we are called upon Georgia does or does not extend over the Cherokees to perform our promises, to return for answer that we had They assume the very question we are debating. They no authority to make them. Have we not received ample say that these lands lay within her chartered limits, m compensation for the promises made? Whether we had that therefore she has jurisdiction over them as a matter the authority or not, is a question between us and Geor- of course. "Chartered limits." gia, and not between us and the Cherokees. They hold one would think that there was some magic, some charn out warranty of authority; and shall we refuse to be bound in these words, which conferred immense powers, so grea by it! But if we had no right to make the contract, what as to subvert all Indian rights whatever. But what are is to be done? I presume, sir, it is to be rescinded. chartered limits? Certain lines described in charters de If the treaty is not binding on us, can it be binding on rived from Great Britain. Gentlemen argue that the sove the Cherokees? If we refuse to be bound by the guaran-reignty of Georgia is derived from her chartered limits ty, may they not refuse to be bound by the cession? The Sovereignty follows them, as a thing of course.

I shall, however, notice hereafter some of the arguments which have been adduced to sustain the right which Georgia sets up to these lands.

[ocr errors]

44 Chartered limits." Si

This

[blocks in formation]

brings us to a further question. What right had the Crown of Great Britain to grant these chartered limits, and to extend them round the Indian possessions? Did the Indians consent? No, sir. I shall be told that it was an act of sovereignty; and this brings us back again to the former question, whence comes your sovereignty? And thus we are reasoning in a circle.

[H. or R

make good a right to usurp the Indian possessions on the ground of the superior title of civilization. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. FOSTER] read the opinion of Mr. Adams, the late Chief Magistrate of the Union, of Dr. Morse, and of some other person, said to be an eminent lawyer, upon this point; and how far did it meet the present juncture The subject under consideration was the The State has jurisdiction and sovereignty because it original right of the natives to the whole continent. Did has received chartered limits, and it has chartered limits he assert that the rights of civilization were so imperious from its rights of sovereignty. Each of these is the cause, and inexorable as to leave the Indian no spot of earth to and each the effect of the other. To such reasoning as rest upon Does he deny that the right, whatever it was this I have a short auswer. I tell gentlemen that chartered originally, may be modified by compact? Does he assert limits are one thing, and jurisdictional limits are another. the monstrous position that when civilized man coveI deny that the two are co-extensive. Chartered limits nants with savage man, the compact is not binding? No, sir; convey no other right than as against those who grant the he went into the question only as considered aside from charter-no other power than to obtain sovereignty and all compacts and conventions, and the strongest language jurisdiction from those who possess it, and could confer it. used was, "that the original right of the Indian had been If the gentlemen mean to fix any other idea to the term doubted." None, surely, will contend that out of the chartered limits, then I deny that the Indians are within rights of civilization grows a right to obliterate at will the chartered limits of Georgia, and I ask, how came they all your own agreements and promises. We stop here. there? And here we come to an argument which has We base our argument on the foundation of contract. been much pressed. We are told of the right of discovery But to return, sir, to the question, what authority the -that the discoverers had a right to plant colonies and to United States had to enter into these stipulations. It seems protect them, to drive off the hostile tribes: and we are strange to me that those who so strenuously deny it should further told that civilization has a superior claim over the account for its undisturbed exercise for so many years savage life; that the earth was intended by Providence past. It was first exercised under the confederation, by to be cultivated. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Fos- virtue of which, the treaty of Hopewell was formed. The TER] has read the opinions of eminent men to sustain gentleman read an article in that instrument, to show that these positions. Sir, these are very fine theories, and I each State retained its own sovereignty, and hence he arshall not stop to question them; but they have nothing to gues that the United States were divested of all power do with the matter in hand. The question is, not what within the range of that sovereignty. But, sir, the rights rights the first discoverers and settlers had, nor whether retained were those not delegated. The States did delecivilization might or might not lawfully usurp the posses-gate to the United States the right of peace and war, and sions of the savage. All these might be very good con- they expressly interdicted that power to the States. siderations, and very interesting questions, before we State shall engage in any war without the consent of the entered into contracts with the Indians. But the simple United States in Congress assembled, unless such State question now is, what are their rights under these con- be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received Bracts ? How have the natural, original rights of the certain advice of a resolution being formed by some naIndians been modified, confirmed, and guarantied by tion of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so compacts! How have our rights as discoverers, or as imminent as not to admit of delay," &c. Georgia could civilized nations, been waived, defined, and limited by not, therefore, engage in war, except in the imminent treaties Surely it will not be contended that the rights danger provided for. As to peace, "the United States of discovery or conquest, or civilization, are so sacred and shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of deimmutable as to be incapable of change or modification termining on peace and war, except in the cases" menby voluntary compact. tioned before. The States had, therefore, no right to make war, except when under actual invasion, or imminent danger of invasion; but they had not the corresponding right of making peace, under any circumstances. The right of war was derived from the imminence of the danger, but the United States must come in, in order to conclude a peace. The treaty of Hopewell was a treaty of peace formed by virtue of this power.

The rights of discovery have been so clearly defined by the honorable member. from New York, [Mr. STORRS] aud so ably expounded in the other branch of Congress, in debates now before the world, that I shall say nothing in relation to them, but to repeat, in a single word, that they are conventional rights between discoverers. As to the right derived from cultivation and civilization, when does it commence Only when that part of the world inhabited by civilized man is full and overflowing, and a portion of its inhabitants are compelled, from the necessity of the case, to seek a new home. Civilization may not till then say to the savages-give ground, yield us more space. Now I ask whether Georgia, Alabama, or Mississippi are so densely populated that more land is wanting for their citizens. Are there not two hundred millions of acres belonging to the United States still unsold? Is not the population of these States sparse and thin? Let them wait till their own territory shall be filled up: then they may assert this right with a better grace. But then another question may arise on this very doctrine. The Indian territory may then be as dense iu population as Georgia, and its inhabitants as civilized also. If that period should ever arrive, may not the Indians turn round on Georgia, and say, we are a civilized people; our country is full to overflowing, and we want some of your land to accom modate our suffering population. Will Georgia be willing to yield to such a claim?

Sir, the period is distant, very distant, when we can

"No

It was made to put an end to war. Had the State of Georgia a right to conclude the peace? No, sir. The United States alone could do it by treaty. Is there any other mode? None. The gentleman complained, in respect to the treaty of Hopewell, that the Cherokees had acknowledged their dependence on the Government of the United States, had placed themselves under its protection, and under no other sovereign whatever. He said the Government had no right to make such a stipulation. But if the Government must conclude a peace, and all yield that, surely they had the right to fix the terms. Why was this objection not made at the time! I am told that Georgia protested against the treaty. I am well aware of it. The ground of that protest was, that the United States were assuming the right of regulating matters with the Indians which belonged to Georgia, and that the legislative right of Georgia had been expressly reserved in the articles of confederation. The article reads thus: The United States shall have the power of "regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians not members of any State, provided that the legislative right

« 上一頁繼續 »