MAY 19, 1830.] Duty on Salt.-Removal of the Indians. [H. OF R to my children, more valuable than uncounted gold—more honorable than imperial power. Sir, the crisis in the fate of these people has arrived. The responsibility is upon us-upon us as a House, and upon each of us as individuals. The Indian here makes his last appeal. All other sources of protection have failed. It remains with us whether he shall return in joy and hope, or in sorrow and despair. Will we listen to his appeal? If we do not, then is their sun about to set, it may be in blood and in tears, Then, indeed, will all human means have failed, and they must be abandoned— abandoned, O God! to thy sovereign mercy. Mr. HUNTINGTON, of Connecticut, followed in a speech of nearly the same length, on the same side. Mr. JOHNS, of Delaware, succeeded, and addressed the committee at great length, also against the bill. The committee then rose, and reported the bill to the House. WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1830. Mr. McDUFFIE, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported the following bill: Sir, the question before us, in all its aspects, is one of great and momentous magnitude. 'It becomes us to pause, and consider well the step we are about to take. If it be at all doubtful, let us so decide as shall preserve, and not impair our national character. If we err, let it be on the side of humanity. In the inaugural address of the present Chief Magistrate, he assures the country-"It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe towards the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy; and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which are consistent with the habits of our Government, and the feelings of our people." Sir, are we about to observe towards them "a just and liberal policy" Are we giving "a humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants?" This pledge remains to be redeemed. If we now turn a deaf ear to the Cherokees who have appealed to our justice, and claimed our protection; if this bill shall pass in its present shape, providing no security for their rights, their destiny will be irrevocably fixed. And how will our conduct toward them bear the scrutiny of an enlightened world, and the just judgment of impartial history? Sir, if we permit these feeble remnants of once powerful nations to be driven from their homes, though it may not reach the same height of infamy which history has assigned to that transaction, in the close of the last century, which blotted Poland from the map of nations, yet will it stand upon the same page of injustice and oppression, and receive the same sentence from posterity. It will stand, too, in the anuals of the world by the side of those enormities which our mother country has practised in another hemisphere; and though the poor Cherokee may find no Burke or Sheridan to tell the story of his griefs, aud to hold up the picture of his wrongs to the execration of mankind, it Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, expressed briefly his obwill go up to a higher tribunal, where sophistry cannot de-jections to the bill, and concluded by moving to postpone lude, and where the humblest Indian will be equal to his proudest oppressor. Sir, it was said by one often quoted upon this floor, (Mr. Jefferson,) and in reference to a subject not dissimilar to the present," I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just, and that his justice will not sleep forever." And although the particular mode of retribution which was in his mind on that occasion may not now be anticipated, yet let us recollect "that the Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us" in a conflict between power and right-between oppression and justice. "Be it enacted, &c. That the duty on salt be fifteen cents per bushel of fifty-six pounds, from the 31st of December, 1830, until the 31st of December, 1831; and, after that time, ten cents a bushel and no more." The bill was read the first time; when Mr. EARL, of New York, objected to the second reading, which motion, by the rules of the House, was tantamount to a motion to reject the bill. After a few remarks by Mr. MILLER, the bill to the next session of Congress, with the view, if his motion prevailed, of moving a call on the Secretary of the Treasury, to collect certain information, which Mr. D. deemed necessary to enable Congress to act discreetly on so importaat a subject. Mr. CHILTON called for the yeas and nays. Mr. P. P. BARBOUR moved the previous question. The call for the previous question being seconded, Mr. POWERS, of New York, moved to lay the bill on the table; and the yeas and nays being demanded by Mr. CONNER, they were taken, and the motion to lay on the table lost: yeas, 83-nays, 102. The previous question being then carried by 110 to 72, REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. The bill for removing the Indians having been taken up in the House, certain amendments were offered by Mr. STORRS, of New York, and Mr. TEST, when the debate was resumed, and continued to a late hour at night. The honorable gentleman from Georgia [Mr. LUMPKIN] has anticipated a period when it will be as odious to be known as an advocate of the Indian rights, as to have supported the passage of the alien and sedition laws. I know not what pretensions the gentleman possesses to the power of augury, but, in my estimation, he has consulted the stars to very little purpose, if such be the lessons they read him. Before that period shall arrive, you must burn all the records of the Government-destroy the history of the country-pervert the moral sense of the community-make injustice and oppression virtues-and breach of national faith honorable; and then, but not till then, will the visions of the gentleman assume the form of realities. Sir, if I could hope, as I surely cannot, that Mr. BATES said he should take it for granted that the nny feeble efforts of mine would outlive the brief hour States which had passed laws subjecting the Indian tribes which gave them existence-if I could give perpetuity to to their jurisdiction, meant what, by their legislative acts, nny thing I can say or do, there is no occasion I should they said, and that the laws which they had passed were covet more than that which I now possess. If I could look to be enforced. I reject [said Mr. B.] even the supposition forward, as I certainly do not, to a long life of public ser- that these laws are made not to be executed, but in mockvice to honors and distinctions-I would forego all for ery-to be used as an expedient, a contrivance-the means the power to roll back the tide of desolation which is about of driving a bargain and accomplishing an object. Upon to overwhelm these hapless sons of the forest. If I could such an attempt, come from what quarter it may-States stand up between the weak, the friendless, the deserted, or individuals-the House would frown indignantly. This and the strong arm of oppression, and successfully vindi-granted, I affirm that the bill before us does not meet the cate their rights, and shield them in their hour of adver- exigency, of the case, nor present fairly and fully the quessity, I should have achieved honor enough to satisfy even tion upon which we are to decide. And why does it not? an exorbitant ambition; and I should leave it as a legacy There are at the South several tribes of Indians-the CheVOL. VI.-132. H. OF R.] Removal of the Indians. [MAY 19, 1830. rokees, Creeks, Chickasaws, and Choctaws, with whom have seen them from the mountain or passed them in the the United States stand in this relation: They are under chase." And thus the subject is presented to Congress, the protection of the United States. The boundary is de- both by the President and the Indians, for consideration. fined between them and the people of the United States, The sympathies of the public having become interestedwhich no white man is at liberty to pass without a license for, sir, nature is the ally of the weak against the strong, under the authority of the United States. In short, they through the range of being, civilized or savage, rational or hold the guaranty of the United States in all the forms of brute, not mercenary but volunteer-numerous memosolemnity of a treaty stipulation by which the faith of a rials came in from every part of the United States, and the nation can be pledged, to protect and defend them. The whole subject is referred to your committee upon Indian States of Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama have passed Affairs. That committee reported a bill making an apprelaws, as these tribes say, directly violating their territorial | priation of five hundred thousand dollars to begin with, for and national rights. Take the law of Georgia as an ex- the removal of the Indians to the west of the Mississippi. emplification of the laws of the three States. Those of The chiefs say to us that that is no answer to their inquiry. Mississippi and Alabama are, in some respects, less severe They desire to know whether they must submit to the laws than that of Georgia, but in principle they are equally of Georgia, and to such laws whether she has a right to inadmissible. The eighth section makes it penal for a abrogate their Government and dissolve their nation. The Cherokee to" endeavor" to prevent one of his tribe from President has told them they must, but has referred the emigrating. A father, therefore, may not influence his subject to us. We answer only by this bill. They tell us child, nor a guardian his ward. No, sir, he thereby makes they cannot decide the question of removal until they himself liable to four years' confinement to hard labor. know their rights where they are. And not only the Indian What will men who are fathers, or not fathers; what will chiefs, but the American people, expect us to answer. men who are free, say to this! Here is money for your removal, we say. This is the only The fifteenth section enacts" that no Indian, or de- answer we design to give them. Well, say they, if you scendant of an Indian, within the Cherokee nation of In- will not tell us directly what our rights are, will you allow dians, shall be a competent witness in any court of Georgia, us to remind you of your duties? Will you defend our in a suit in which a white man is a party, unless such white boundary, and protect us where we are, as you agreed to man resides within said nation." While Georgia makes do? The President has said he will not. They urge upon the Indians citizens, or subjects, she does not leave them to the consideration of Congress the impossibility of deciding the common law to exclude for infamy, interest, or incom- fairly and understandingly what they will do, until they petency of any kind, but she proscribes the nation-an know what their condition is to be where they are. entire district of men-the population of a whole city, Whether they must submit to such a law or not-whether county, or parish-and that without reference to their they will be protected or not-whether they are to retain character, talent, or capacity, whether christian or heathen, their lands, or whether Georgia, who has not even seen civilized or savage. They are all turned off the stand by them from the mountain, nor passed them in the chase,” one general, sweeping interdict of law. Now, sir, what is to have them. Sir, they produce to you your treaty ever may be the form of the constitution of Georgia, if it with them. Is this your signature and seal? Is this your sanctions this act, it is a despotism. Tiberius never die promise? Will you keep it? If you will not, will you give tated an act in its essence more tyrannical, or in its charac-us back the lands we let you have for it! The President ter more unjust. And to take away the only apology that answers, no; and the Congress of the United States answers any man could offer the incapacity of the people to testify here is money for your removal. We dare not in the face -this very law admits their capacity, by admitting them of the American people, directly affirm the answer of the to be witnesses if the party to the suit be resident within President; and, therefore, we evade the question, and the Cherokee nation. But this is not the worst feature of hope to hide ourselves in the folds of this bill when a seru. the law, if worse can be. tiny shall be made for us. Sir, who so blind as not to see that by implication, direct and inevitable, you affirm the decision of the President, by giving him the means to carry that decision into effect? You decide that the Indians are the citizens of Georgia-subject to her jurisdiction, and that you will not defend their boundary, nor protect them. This you decide obliquely, at a time when the crisis in the affairs of the Indian nations, and in the affairs of your own honor, too, require that you should speak out. You co operate with Georgia-you give effect to her laws-you put the Indians aside,and trample your treaties with them in the dust. And it will be in vain you tell the world you did not set fire to the city, when you saw it burning, and would not put it out; and when you were its hired patrol and watch. By the seventh section "all laws, ordinances, orders, and regulations, of any kind whatever, made by the Cherokee Indians, in any way whatever, are declared to be null and void as if the same had never existed; nor shall they be given in evidence on the trial of any suit whatever, thus dissolving and resolving the nation into its original, individual elements; making, as if it had never been, all that combines and forms men into States, nations, or tribes; dissolving all ties but those of nature. I beg the House to realize the measure, the extent and scope of this unrivalled, outrageous act of usurped dominion. Bring it home. Let it be said to you to the United States of America, that "all your laws, ordinances, orders, and regulations shall be null as if they had never existed!" Let it be said by a na- In passing this bill, therefore, the House decide that the tion that was weak when you were strong; that had grown Indians are the citizens of Georgia, subject to the jurisdie up by your side; that had increased while you had decreas- tion of Georgia; and that we ought not and cannot intered! Let a nation say it that had lived by your permission: fere to protect them. Now, sir, I deny it all. I affirm that had pledged itself for your protection and defence! the contrary. I maintain that the Indians are not the citi Does it change the case to change the name? Has the zens of Georgia, nor subject to the jurisdiction of Georgis: Cherokee no attachment to the simple forms of govern- but that they are sovereign, and that we are pledged to ment he has matured and improved? To the customs and protect them in the enjoyment of their rights of sove regulations of his fathers? Does he not feel? Is he not a man? reignty; and that Georgia has no right that stands in the In this condition of things the Indians applied to the Pre-way of it, constitutional or other. Sir, the great men sident. He told them, as he tells us in his message, "that if who have gone before us in this business were not so u they remain within the limits of the United States, they wise, nor uninstructed in their duties, nor can they thus be must be subject to the laws; that they will be protected in put in the wrong by those who now have the administra their possessions which they have improved; but that it tion of affairs. seemed to him absurd and visionary to suppose their claims I shall not go with the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. can be allowed to tracts of country merely because they | BELL] to the other side of the Mississippi, either for the MAY 19, 1830.] Removal of the Indians. [H. of R. And purpose of ascertaining whether the trees can be made to In 1732, Georgia was a part of South Carolina. grow for the use of the emigrant Indians where none ever in order to erect a barrier against the Indians and Spagrew before, or whether the emigrants themselves will niards in Florida, upon the frontier of South Carolina, form a convenient barrier between our own settlements George II. by patent, created a corporation, styled the and the tribes of Indians west of them; or, if convenient, "Trustees for establishing the colony of Georgia in Amewhether they may not have an objection to becoming a rica," to hold for his use all the land between the Atlanbreastwork to be shot at, or shot through, for our accom- tic and the South Sea as it was then termed, within the modation; or, in a region where they are now frequent vic-degrees of latitude and the boundaries therein given. No tims to famine, whether an addition of such a promiscuous individual was to hold more than fifty acres, and that in tair and wild population will not be likely to augment the evil male. The command of the militia was given to the GoNo, sir, for if this bill pass, your faith is gone, your honor vernor of South Carolina. In this patent nothing is said violated, and there is nothing left worth a wise man's of the Indians. In 1752 it was surrendered. Oglethorp, thought. But I will take the liberty to remark, that it who was the active agent of the corporation, in 1788 arseems to me to be strangely precipitate and heedless to rived in Georgia with a hundred and fourteen emigrants, send these people into a region about which we know so men, women, and children, and selected the site of Salittle; that it ought not to be done without a minute ex vannah as the most eligible place for a lodgment, where ploration of the country by impartial, intelligent men, he erected a fort. The Upper and lower Creeks were commissioned and sent there for the purpose. then twenty-five thousand strong. In order to get a title I take the liberty further to enter my protest against to some land, he employed a female of the half blood, the the appeal that has been made to party feeling in this dis- wife of a trader, to whom he made liberal presents, and cussion. If that is to be invoked and erlisted, the destiny of gave a salary of a hundred pounds a year. She assemthese nations is fixed. It is a spirit that has no heart, no bled fifty Indian chiefs, and prepared them to accede to sympathy, no relenting. Truth may pour her radiance upon Oglethorp's propositions of a treaty. They ceded, with its vision, and it sees not. Distress may utter her cry, and some reservations, all the land to the head of tide water, it hears not. Often has it stained the scaffold with the within the limits of the patent. That treaty admits that blood of the innocent. Nor is the sectarian influence the Indians owned the land, and were sovereign. They that has been called in aid of this measure by the honor were treated with as "the head men of the Creek nation;" able gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. LUMPKIN] less to be and the land, in express terms, is said to be theirs. deprecated; for although, at this age of the world, it is" Although this land belongs to us," the Creeks say, yet, not seen actually planting the stake and lighting the fires, in consideration that the Georgians have come for the yet it is akin to the other. And it would be as much in good of our wives and children, and "to teach us what place, in the high court of law at the other end of the is straight," we make the cession. At Coweta, in 1739, capitol, to appeal to the sectarian and party feelings of the another treaty, preceded by large presents, was made, in judges as a correct rule of decision, as to make the ap- which the boundaries of the first cession were more parpeal to honorable gentlemen here. Sir, it is not a ques- ticularly defined; and the trustees declare "that the tion upon the life or liberty of an individual, but upon the English shall not enlarge or take any other lands except fate of nations. How then can any man in such a case, and in those granted by the Creek nation; and covenant that such a place, dare to make the appeal, and hope to be for-they will punish any person that shall intrude upon the given! What a reflection upon the integrity and the lands reserved by them." In 1762, at Mobile, at a conhonor of this House! Sir, it is not a party question. No vention of Indian nations, Captain Smith the Indian agent, man can make it such, until he can quench the last spark told them" that the boundaries of their hunting grounds of honor in the breast, and stop the current of feeling in should be accurately fixed, and no settlement permitted the heart, and put out the light of truth in the mind, and upon them," assuring them "that all treaties would be stifle the voice of conscience in the soul. Sir, it is our faithfully kept." At a meeting at Augusta, in 1763, to right to decide this question; it is our duty to decide it which Captain Smith's "talk" waa preliminary, a further upon principle-a right in trust for our constituents and cession of land was made by the Creeks and Cherokees, in country, and a duty imposed upon us by relations which payment of the debts they had contracted. The Governwe cannot change, and from which we cannot escape, ors of the four southern States were present. As showing coming down upon us from above, and springing up upon clearly how this subject was viewed by them in 1767, we us from beneath, and flowing in from all around us. Let find the Indians complaining to the Governor of Georgia, this question, therefore, when it comes to be decided, be of encroachments upon their lands; and they ask him decided upon a full and broad survey of its merits, and its" how it could be expected of them to govern their young merits only. My positions are, that the Cherokees are not the tenants of Georgia, nor subject to her jurisdiction; but that they are the sole proprietors of the territory they occupy, whether as hunting grounds or otherwise, and are sovereign; and that the United States are pledged to defend their boundary, to protect them in the enjoyment of all their rights and privileges as a nation. warriors, if he could not restrain the white people." In 1773, they cede another tract of land, and it was then agreed "that the bounds fixed by that treaty should be the mark of division between his Majesty's subjects and the said Indian nations." This line, or Indian boundary, limited the territory of the colonists on the west, and limited, as I contend, their jurisdiction. Within this they had a right to dictate law; I suppose it will be admitted that the Cherokees are a beyond this they had no right to do it. If they had such distinct class of men from the Georgians; that they were right, or the King, their master, had such right, then the once sovereign; and that the presumption is, they are Indians were bound to submit. A right implies a duty. sovereign still. The onus probandi, as the profession say, In relation to this subject, incompatible rights cannot is therefore upon Georgia. If she claims the right of dic-exist. Now, who will pretend that if the King had passed tating law to this nation, once sovereign, it is for her to a law abrogating their customs, and making them amenashow whence she derived it. With this view of the subject, I propose to go back to the origin of the State of Georgia, and briefly to trace her history to the revolution, to see what her rights then were in relation to the Indians, as admitted and established by compact. This will preclude the necessity of inquiring as to natural rights. ble to the courts of Georgia, the Indians would not have had a right to resist the execution of it? If the Cherokees were subject to the jurisdiction of Georgia, then, prior to the treaty of 1763, the Indians beyond the Rocky Mountains were, (for the charter extended to the Pacific Ocean,) some of whom probably had never heard of the English nation or King. Who will pretend that he had a H. OF R.] Removal of the Indians. right to subject them to his laws, and, if need be, by the military arm, as his liege subjects! He might have had the power to conquer them, but he had no right to do it, which, unless in self defence, is nothing more than a right to rob and murder. [MAY 19, 1830. delegates from the different States met at Philadelphia. Congress immediately assumed the direction of the Indian relations, as of nations distinct from the States, and independent of them. After a short session for other purposes, in the autumn of 1774, Congress met in May, 1775, and in June a committee was appointed to make an appeal to the Indian nations. They were addressed thus, by or der of Congress : The Indian boundary is sometimes called the "line of ordinary jurisdiction," implying an extraordinary jurisdiction beyond it. What was that? By the right of discovery, settled by compact among the discovering nations, "Brothers and friends: This is a family quarrel between and since confirmed by treaties with most of the Indians us and Old England. Indians are not concerned in it.” themselves, the King of Great Britain had the sole and In the same month the Indian tribes were arranged into exclusive right of purchasing of the Indian nations their three departments-the Northern, Southern, and Middle; title to the land laying in that part of America which had and commissioners were appointed to treat with them been assigned to him. We call it the right of pre-emption."in behalf of the United States, to preserve peace with The whole of his extraordinary jurisdiction consisted of them, and prevent their taking part in the commotions of the right to defend and protect that right of pre-emption; the times." consequently of repelling invasion, and generally of pre- In January, 1776, rules for Indian intercourse were esserving it unimpaired. The King never attempted or tablished, interdicting all "trade with them without a liclaimed any thing more. I affirm, therefore, that, with cense." this exception, the Indian boundary was the boundary of In 1777, another "talk" was addressed to them, re-afthe jurisdiction of both King and colony. I affirm, fur-firming that they ought to take no part in the war between ther, that the Indian nations were the sole and absolute the United States and Great Britain, and stating, also, that, owners of the land which they had not ceded, and which although the "Cherokees had been prevailed upon to lay west of the Indian boundary, subject only to this re-strike us, they had seen their error, had repented, and we striction upon their right of alienation. Accordingly, the had forgiven them, and renewed our ancient covenant King, in his proclamation of 1763, disclaims any other chain with them.” right to it. He says "it is but just and reasonable, and essential to our interest, &c., that the tribes of Indians who live under our protection," (as they now live under the protection of the United States,) "should not be disturbed in their possessions, which, not having been pur. chased by us or ceded to us, are reserved to them; we do, therefore, declare that no Governor, or commander, shall survey or grant them, and that they are reserved to the Indians." This is the substance of this article. The King does not rest the right of the Indian nations to these lands upon concessions, gift, grant, indulgence, or expediency, but upon the broad and solid basis of the "justice and reasonableness" of their unalienated title; a due regard for which principles will be found always to comport with a wise policy. Before I pass from this period, as we commonly speak for the Indians, it is but right, when we can, to let them speak for themselves. I refer to the negotiation at Lancaster, in 1744. The Governor of Maryland claimed some of their land by possession. Canasateego replied: "When you mentioned the affair of the land yesterday, you went back to old times, and told us you had had the province of Maryland above one hundred years. But what is a hundred years in comparison of the length of time since our claim began-since we came out of the ground! For we must tell you, that long before one huudred years, our ancestors came out of this ground, and their children have remained here ever since. You came out of the ground beyond the seas; but here you must allow us to be your elder brothers, and the lands to belong to us long before you knew any thing of them." To Virginia, who claimed some of their lands by conquest, another chief answered: "Though great things are well remembered by us, we do not remember that we were ever conquered by the great King, or that we have been employed by him to conquer others. If it was so, it is beyond our memory. We do remember we were employed by Maryland to conquer the Conestogas; and the second time that we were at war with them, we carried them all off." The House will perceive what the views of these people were of their right to their land, and what their notions were of possession and conquest. I think it clear, therefore, that before the revolution they were not the citizens of Georgia, nor subject to the jurisdiction of Georgia, nor tenants at the will of Georgia, When the troubles with Great Britain came on, and the In 1778, a treaty with the Deleware nation was concluded at Fort Pitt. The parties to it were "the United States of North America and the Delaware nation;" and it stipulates: That there shall be peace; and that the troops of the United States may pass "through the country of the Delaware nation," upon paying the full value of the supplies they may have. It further provides that "Whereas the enemies of the United States have endeavored, by every artifice, to possess the Indians with an opinion that it is our design to extirpate them, and take possession of their country-to obviate such false suggestions, the United States guaranty to said nation of Delawares, and their heirs, all their territorial rights, in the fullest and most ample manner, as bounded by former treaties;" and they further provide for a confederacy of tribes, of which the Delaware nation was to be the head, and to have a representative in Congress. Here is recognition enough of the rights of Indians And, to put an end to the false suggestion, which none but an enemy could make, assurance is given, by treaty, binding upon the whole country, that their territorial rights shall be defended in the fullest and most ample manner, as antecedently defined. Now, sir, let it be recollected that, during this period, all the States, by their agents acting under their authority and with their sanction and approbation, adopted these measures. They may, therefore, be considered a fair and decisive indication of what was then thought to be our Indian relations. In no respect were the Indians treated as citizens or subjects, but as sovereign tribes or nations, with the power of making peace or war at pleasure; much less as tenants at the will of the States-one, any, or all of them When the articles of confederation were adopted, i 1778, or, finally, by all the States, in 1781, "the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the trade and managing all the affairs of the Indians not members of any of the States," was given to the United States. I connexion with this clause is a proviso "that the legis tive right of any State within its own limits be not infring ed or violated." The argument is, that the Cherokes were the citizens of Georgia, and subject to her juris tion. From this article it is clear there were Indians with whom the United States had trade to regulate, and affairs to manage, who were not members of any State. If not the Cherokees, who were they The land from the At lantic to the Mississippi, within the limits of the Unite. States, was within the geographical boundary of some one of the States. According to the position of Georgia, therefore, there were no such tribes. Reliance is placed upon the proviso as controlling the express grant; and, if no effect could be given to the proviso, consistent with the grant, there might be something in the suggestion. But while the "power of entering into treaties and alliances" is given in the same section, there is a proviso, "that the legislative power of the States shall not be restrained from imposing duties and prohibiting the exportation and importation of goods." These articles were permanent; and it was not to be foreseen what these tribes might be come. With the same view, the proviso in relation to them might have been adopted. Or, it might have been, the term Indians being used, and not Indian nations, in order to restrain Congress from interfering with such of them as were dispersed among the inhabitants of the States. Or, again, it might have been to restrain Congress from controlling the laws of the States in relation to the people of these Indian nations, when within the acknowledged limits and jurisdiction of the States. Or, finally, it might have been out of abundant caution, without any distinctly contemplated object. Effect enough can be given to sustain the proviso, without annulling the power granted. And this grant plainly proves that there were Indian nations or tribes who were "not members of any of the States;" and, if so, the Cherokees do not belong to Georgia. What Congress understood by this article, is clear; for, immediately after the confederation, in 1781, it passed a resolve approving of the appointment of commissioners by General Green to negotiate a treaty with the Cherokee Indians; and the whole course of its legislation, to the adoption of the constitution in 1788, shows the same thing. [H. OF R. In this condition of things the constitution was adopted; and, instead of the clause in the articles of confederation, with the limitation and the proviso, a general, unlimited, unqualified power is given to Congress, to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes," and as fully and unconditionally as with "foreign nations," or among the several States." This article in the constitution establishes my position, that the Indians were not members of the States, nor subject to their jurisdiction; but were sovereign nations with whom the United States had a commerce to regulate. If, as affirmed, they were members of the State of Georgia citizens or subjects-then the grant of power was to regulate commerce among the several States and the members thereof; which is a power never claimed nor admitted. Congress deals only with States; the States with their citizeus or subjects. Congress, therefore, in express terms, has the power to prescribe all the forms of intercourse between the United States and the Indian tribes, or to interdict it altogether as the exigency may require, in the same sense and to the same extent as it has with foreign nations. In 1790, the first Indian intercourse law under the constitution was passed, forbidding all trade between the citizens of the United States and the Indians, except by persons duly licensed. The fifth section provides, that, if any citizen of the United States go into any town belonging to a nation of Indians, and there commit a crime, he shall be punished as if said crime had been committed within the jurisdiction of a State. Is not this decisive that the Cherokees are not citizens of Georgia, nor within the jurisdiction of Georgia? The act of 1796 defines the boundary of the Indian tribes, and makes it penal for any citizen of the United States to pass it without a license, Another act was passed in 1799, substantially of the same import. In 1783, the Secretary of War was directed to notify the Indian nations "that the United States were disposed to enter into friendly treaties with the different tribes." These acts were temporary, and the provisions of them This was in May, after the peace. In September, Con- were embodied in the act of 1802, which was made pergress issued a proclamation, prohibiting settlements "on manent. It is now in full force, and has been ever since lands inhabited and claimed by Indians without the limits its enactment. The only provisions in either this or the and jurisdiction of any particular State;" and prohibiting antecedent acts, objected to, were a part of the fifth secthe purchase of such lands, without an express "authority tion of the act of 1796, relating to the forfeiture of lands, from the United States in Congress assembled." What and the sixth section, punishing with death the murder of lands were these, without the limits, and without the ju- an Indian. These provisions were, among other things, risdiction, too, of any State? In October, Congress re- the foundation of a remonstrance to Congress by Georsolved that a convention should be holden of the different gia. The objectionable feature of the fifth section was tribes, for the purpose of receiving them "into the favor omitted, and the sixth section was retained, in the act of and protection of the United States," and of establishing 1802. This act has been in force, and has been enforced boundary lines of property to divide the settlements of the by all the States, as a wise and constitutional law. Well, citizens from the Indian villages and hunting grounds. In sir, this re-affirms the Indian boundary as then established 1784, another resolve was passed, to expedite the holding and defined by the Indian treaties. It provides that no of treaties; and, in 1785 particularly, with the Cherokees person shall pass it, not even the Governor of Georgia, and the Indians to the southward of them. This is the much less his bailiffs, without authority from the United resolve under which the treaties of Hopewell were held. States. It forbids all settlements by the whites on the The commissioners were appointed for the purpose of making peace; they went under the protection of an armed force; they went with presents. It was a peace we sought, not the Indian nations. After the treaties of Hopewell were concluded with the different tribes, the Indian de partments were re-organized, and another resolve was passed in 1786, regulating Indian intercourse. No citizen was to reside among or trade with the Indians, without a license. And in 1788, upon application of Georgia herself, the Creeks were notified that if they persisted in refusing to treat with the United States, an armed force would be called out to protect the frontier. Indian lands, and invests the army with power to arrest and bring offenders to punishment. It makes void all grants by Indian nations, or individuals, unless sanctioned by Congress; and it commissions the President to see it faithfully executed. It will be perceived at a glance, that, if the Indians were the citizens of Georgia, or subject to her jurisdiction, the whole range of this act is unconstitutional. Congress can make no such internal regulations among the inhabitants of a State, as it contemplates. The act of Georgia itself, "to extend her laws over the territory in the occupancy of the Cherokee Indians," is the most decisive proof that they were not within her jurisI do not find a remonstrance, or an objection even, by any diction before. The general laws of the State were with of the States to the powers assumed and exercised by Con-out limitation. Of their own force, as soon as passed, they gress in relation to the Indian nations, except as to the pervaded and covered the whole extent and circumfe treaty of Hopewell with the Cherokees; and that, Con- rence of her jurisdiction. And yet a special act is now negress enforced, notwithstanding, by a proclamation in Sep-cessary to give them effect among the Cherokees! Why tember, 1788, deeming it a treaty binding upon the United this? Because they were not within her jurisdiction beStates, and upon Georgia as one of the United States. fore. They were honest laws, and knew that their com |