Slike strani
PDF
ePub

H. OF R.]

Removal of the Indians.

[MAY 19, 1830.

for a while their once terrible names. In proof of the now reduced to a very small number; and will, probably, correctness of this remark, I shall omit arguments of my in a very short time, wholly disappear." own, and supply them by referring to authorities. And should I be fortunate enough to show that the deteriora tion of other tribes has been the result of their confined location, I trust I shall have obviated some of the difficulties which rest on the minds of gentlemen, and that they will co-operate with us in affording the means which are necessary to be employed in furtherance of this benevolent design. I shall read a portion of a speech delivered in the Senate, in 1825, and a commentary or marginal note in a volume of the laws of Connecticut.

This, sir, is the language used by Mr. Elliot :

"To any one who has carefully attended to the history of the tribes within the old States, it must be apparent that their uniform decline results from causes growing out of their location. So true is this position, that, while you can scarcely point to a nation of Indians wasting away, either numerically or physically, in their native wilderness, I know of no tribe within the States, surrounded by a white population, who have not declined in both these respects, and who are not in manifest danger of extinction. What, sir, has become of the immense hordes of those people who once occupied the soil of the older States In New England, where numerous and warlike tribes once so fiercely contended for supremacy with our forefathers, but two thousand five hundred of their descendants now remain; and these are mixed up with negro blood, dispirited and degraded. Of the powerful league of the Six Nations, so long the scourge and terror of New York, only five thousand souls survive; while in Jersey, Pennsylvania, Dela ware, and Maryland, they are either entirely extinct, or their numbers are so reduced as to have escaped the notice of the department. In Virginia, Mr. Jefferson informs us that there were, in 1607, between the sea coast and the mountains, and from the Potomac to the most southern waters of James river, upwards of forty tribes of Indians; now there are but forty-seven individuals within the State. That many of these people have removed, and others per rished by the sword, in the frequent wars which occurred in the progress of our settlements in all these States, I am free to admit; but where are the hundreds of thousands. with their descendants, who neither removed nor were thus destroyed! Sir, like a promontory of sand, exposed to the ceaseless encroachments of the ocean, they have been gradually wasting away before the current of white population which set in upon them from every quarter; and, unless speedily removed, by the provisions of this bill, beyond the influence of this cause, a remnant will not long be found to point you to the graves of their ancestors, or to relate the sad story of their misfortunes"

If this is their reduced condition, resulting from their confined location, and that, too, amidst the solicitude indulged for their welfare, the regrets experienced at their decline, and when honest efforts have been made to avert the causes of their desolation, what will be the precipitate state of ruin of the Creeks and Cherokees, should they persevere in a misguided and reckless course of waging an opposition to the laws of the States? Sir, it does not require the aid of past experience to divine it; and nothing but a forbearance on the part of the States, to which their own citizens could lay no just claim, can withstay or avert it. The President has fully disclosed his opinion to us as it regards the power of the Sta es in extending their laws over them-the right is conceded. Instead, therefore, of having the military force of this country to interpose for its prevention, the States would have a right to call it to their aid in case of resistance. The right of jurisdiction need not be questioned. It is settled. Georgia acquired it in the establishment of her colonial independence, reserved it in her admission into the Union; and it is to be regarded as one of the inseparable appendages of her sovereignty. These are admitted principles, and form the basis on which the present administration is acting; and the Federal Government can make no pledge, enter into no agreement or compact, in violation of these inherent rights of the States. The framers of our constitution supposed they had sufficiently guarded and defined the powers of the Federal Government by a special enumeration of them; and so sensibly impressed were they that the perpetuity of our political system depended on the preservation of the rights of the States, free from federal encroachments and federal influence, that they were not disposed to leave them in such a situation that their rights could be compromitted, or their powers abridged, 'by pretensions of the Federal Government which did not rest on a special grant of power. They, therefore, imposed the burden of proof on it, by saying that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The friends of the rights of the States indulged apprehensions of an accumulation of power on the part of the Federal Government, tending towards consolidation; hence they conceived the necessity of this restrictive clause, intended to circumscribe and limit its powers, and to operate as a security to the States. If, then, this right, which Georgia claims to exercise, is not delegated by the constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, it leaves Georgia at her own volition to extend or not her jurisdiction over them. Give to gentlemen all they claim, and In the laws of Connecticut is to be found the comment-upon which they rest the denial of the right of Georgia to ary to which I have alluded; and, to the statement of facts do what has been done by her, and to what does it amount ? contained in it, I solicit your attention. "When our an- That the United States have a right to make treaties, (the cestors took possession of the territory now composing extent of which I shall hereafter investigate,) and to rethis State, it was inhabited by a great number of tribes of Indians. They never had a war with any but the Pequots within the State. At a very early period they were all in some degree of subjection to the English. They were never treated as a conquered nation, or enslaved, but were treated as friends and allies, and even considered as a free people. The great object was to civilize them, and the control exercised over them was for their protection and benefit. In the revision of 1672, regulations are found, requiring ministers of the gospel to endeavor to convert them to christianity, prohibiting pow-wows and the profa nation of the sabbath, and punishing murder. In the revision of 1802, there are some additional requisitions, to prevent the selling of strong drink to them, to punish them for drunkenness, to protect them in their rights of property, and to prevent any private persons purchasing their lands. Under this mild treatment, without war, pestilence, or famine, they have been continually diminishing, and are

gulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. I shall not stop to discuss many contested points. Grant that it belongs exclusively to the United States to regulate commerce, and that it is general in its application, extending to the tribes within, as well as without, the limits of the States, it gives no right to do any thing more than what the constitution expresses, that of regulating commerce, and to "pass such laws as are necessary and proper for carrying into execution that power." It imparts to the United States no civil or criminal jurisdiction over any other subject. The same right exists of regulating commerce among the several States. Yet no one here will contend that the States relinquished, by this clause in the constitution, their rights of jurisdiction, or parted with their sovereignty on other matters disconnected with commerce; or that the power to regulate commerce among the several States conferr on the United States the right to interfere with their munici

MAY 19, 1830.]

of them.

[blocks in formation]

pal regulations, and supercede their authority in the in- rights. In the commencement of the section, it states that fliction of punishment for trespass, murder, and other cri- "no new State shall be formed or erected within the juris minal offences, with which commerce has no connexion. diction of another, nor any State be formed by the junc If, then, the United States cannot, in the regulations of tion of two or more States, or parts of States, without the commerce among the several States, divest the States of consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well their jurisdiction over other subjects, how do the same as of the Congress." And, in the concluding part of the words, in relation to Indian tribes, increase the powers of same article, it states, that nothing in this constitution shall the Federal Government, or diminish or impair the rights be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United of the States? They do not. We might here rest the pro- States, or any particular State. This article was referred priety of the course which Georgia has pursued with per- to by my colleague, [Mr. FOSTER] and the gentleman who fect security, and demand of those who hold a different succeeded him in debate [Mr. EVANS] seemed to conclude opinion, to produce the grant of power, this grand political that he had placed the question at rest, by the exposition lever, which is to prostrate the sovereignty of the States, he gave it. His argument, however, was exhausted in the and reduce them to a standing with petty corporations, de- establishment of that which no one has denied. It is true pendent on the Federal Government, if not for their ex- that no new State is to be formed, such as is to become a istence, for the extent of their powers. Sir, if the United member of this confederacy. But if, by the constitution States have a right to impose limitations on the States where Congress is prohibited from forming or erecting a new there is no delegated authority to do so, in one instance, it State within the jurisdiction of another, without the conmay, with the same propriety, be claimed and exercised in sent of the Legislature of the State concerned, as well as all. There is no political restraint imposed, unless it is Congress, with what plausibility can it be contended that done by the constitution; and if the general welfare clause it can promote the views of Indian tribes in forming or confers a concurrent right with the enumerated powers, erecting an independent Government within the limits of a then we have imposed upon us no restraints, but notions of State? To assert it, would be assuming the proposition expediency, and, in the plenitude of power, may super- that it could do more for them than for the United States cede and forbid every act of State legislation, and assume or any particular State. I arrive, then, at this conclusion: the attitude that it is the province of the Federal Govern- that, as it requires an act of Congress, and the concurrent ment to prescribe, and the duty of the States to obey. For consent of the State concerned, to form another, so the one, I enter my protest against such principles; and Geor- consent of Georgia to the establishment of an Indian Gogia, Alabama, and Mississippi, knowing their constitutional vernment within her limits is an essential requisite; withrights, will not implicitly yield to so flagrant a usurpation out which, the Indians may invoke the aid of the United States, the malcontents memorialize, and Congress legis. Let me now call your attention to such parts of the con- late in vain on the subject. Let the States confine themstitution of the United States as will establish these posi- selves within the pale of the constitution, and its panoply tions. That the States can exercise acts of sovereignty will be their shield. You may, indeed, in your acts of feover the Indians within their limits; that the United States deral legislation, adopt the language of Canute, and say to cannot prevent it by supporting them in their claims to an them, "thus far shalt thou go, aud no farther," but it will independent Government; and that all the guaranties made be as idle as his was presumptuous. My object in referring to the Indians of lands within the admitted limits of Georgia to that clause in the constitution, was not only to show the are violative of the constitutional provision which protects inability of Congress to extend assistance to them in erectthe claims of States, and are void so far as that State is con- ing a Government in opposition to the States, but also to call cerned. The first article and second section of the consti- to recollection another fact, equally important to enter into tution, having a reference to the apportionment of represent the consideration of this subject, viz. that it was underatives, and the mode of their apportionment, reads in these stood by the parties to the constitution, that particular words: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be appor- States had claims, and that those claims were not preju tioned among the several States which may be included diced by any thing contained in that instrument. If, then, within this Union, according to their respective numbers, in 1787, it were understood by the parties to the constituwhich shall be determined by adding to the whole num- tion, and so inscribed in that instrument, that no power ber of free persons, including those bound to service for a was delegated to the Federal Government to prejudice the term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths territorial rights of the States, with what propriety can it of all other persons. Excluding Indians not taxed. If be contended that, in 1791, by the treaty at Holston, bethese words mean any thing, it is that a State has the tween this Government and an Indian tribe, it could not right to tax them, and that she is not driven to the neces-only prejudice, but convey away the rights of soil and jusity of resorting to her reserved rights for the power to ex ercise this act of sovereignty. I advert to this article in the constitution, not only to show that a State could tax, but, by so doing, she could so far identify them with her body politic, as to increase her federal members, and with it her representation on this floor. No clause in the constitution was framed with more deliberation, or indited with greater caution. Well may we suppose that it elicited the watchful vigilance of all. For such was the jealousy which existed from its forming the basis of political strength, in the sectional divisions of the Union, that its adoption was the result of a compromise. It is apparent that the framers of the constitution conceived that the States could exercise the high act of sovereignty of taxing them; and that on their doing it depended au increase of their political power. Let me call your attention to the fourth article and third section of the constitution, to show that Congress cannot extend relief to Indians thus situated, by constituting them separate and independent of the State Government, and call to recollection the fact, that the States, in their admission into the Union, parted with none of their territorial

risdiction which Georgia had in her territory? Such is the inviolability of treaties in the estimation of gentlemen who resist the passage of this bill, that they hold them paramount to the constitution; that the President is bound to execute them, and is not permitted to question their validity. This sir, is the argument of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. STORRS] It must have escaped the sagacious mind of that gentleman, that the President is bound by the highest obligations of duty to his God and his country, "to the best of his ability," to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. But if, as is contended, a treaty supersedes the constitution, and controls it, to what extent will the principle carry us? The President and two-thirds of the Senate hold the fate of the republic at will, and can not only change the constitution, so far as it now secures the rights of the States, but can absolve us from all constitutional obligation whatever. According to the construction thus given to the treaty-making power, that clause of the constitution conferring it has imposed upon us a despotism more bideous in its character than any conjured up by the imagination of gentlemen, from the oppressions of which

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

the constitution affords no relief. These, sir, are the prin- | If so, may not the General Government dismember the ciples called in requisition to defeat the rights and abridge States, and convey them away by retail, or the wholesale, the sovereignty of an independent State.

to Great Britain, France, or any other power, at discreIt was also contended by the honorable member from tion? The same power certainly exists to negotiate a treaty New York, [Mr. STORES] as well as by the gentleman with foreign nations, as does with a horde of savages; and from Maine, Mr. EVANS] that the treaty of Holston is it appears that that is the process by which Georgia is to binding on Georgia, because the United States is a party be deprived both of soil and jurisdiction. I have proceeded to it. That Georgia, being one of the confederated States, in the discussion of the question presented, upon the hypois bound by every act of the General Government, and thesis that, since the independence of the United States, therefore she ought not to complain. That it was the will the rights of soil and jurisdiction were identified with the of the majority, and that passive obedience is a duty which sovereignty of the State of Georgia. I will now attempt she should not violate. It was not anticipated that this to show that the supposition is true. It may be considered antiquated doctrine would be revived, and brought to bear by some a difficult task: it would be so regarded, had I on this question. We are not one great national empire, to rely, in the undertaking, exclusively upon my own and I trust we shall never see the powers of this Govern- resources. But the speculations of the theorist have been ment consolidated. "The Union of the States and the submitted to legal examination and practical test; and the sovereignty of the States" must be preserved, if we would chaos of conflicting sentiment and opinion reduced to order transmit to posterity the rich inheritance which we derived and regularity by a tribunal which should be unaffected by from our ancestors. The States are sovereign and inde- the changes of administrations, of time, or of circumstances. pendent, except in such instances as they have parted with I allude, sir, to the cases of Johnson vs. Melntosh and their sovereignty by a delegation of the power to this Go- Fletcher and Peck, decided by the Supreme Court of the vernment. They are parties to the constitution, and, as United States, our distinguished Chief Justice being the such, have rights, and have retained all power not yielded organ of delivery. Before you are invited to a minute exby them to the United States. The constitution was in- amination of that doctrine, let us indulge in a brief review tended to secure to them the exercise and enjoyment of of the exploded doctrines which conflict with it, and which these rights and privileges against an illegal assumption of are now revived and promulged by partisan writers, pertipower, or an abuse of the powers of this Government. If naciously insisted on by memorials on your table, and zealthe reasoning of gentlemen be correct, great must have ously advocated by gentlemen on this floor. It is suggested been the infatuation and folly of the States in committing by some that the unqualified right remains in the Indians, the suicidal act of deliberately forming an instrument which as original proprietors of the soil: while others, with as was to result in a total annihilation of all their political little approach to accuracy, admit the full operation of the rights. I trust, sir, that it is unnecessary to pursue this laws of nations, but derive the Indian title from the United part of the subject any further. Georgia has rights inde- States by the treaty of Holston, and repose unequivocal pendent of this Government. The first interference with reliance in the guaranty contained in it-thus denying to them took place in 1788, by the treaty of Hopewell, which Georgia any original well-founded claim to the unapproonly designated the hunting ground of the Cherokee tribe. priated territory within her limits. The only plausible And, in addition to the treaty of Holston, there was a trea-opinion urged in support of this opinion, is, that the indety held with the Creeks in 1790, which guarantied the soil of Georgia to them. To every advance of federal usurpation, Georgia opposed her protest, repudiated it as unconstitutional, and violative of her rights. She did not admit, at that time, as appears from her remonstrance, that her political existence had entirely merged into that of the Federal Government, and that, as a State, she had no separate rights. Nor has she, as some have supposed, acquiesced in this measure, or waived any original right. It matters not, then, how superlative may be the folly of the United States in transferring to another a right over | which she had no control. It matters not how solemnly the guaranty of the territory of Georgia to the Cherokee tribe may have been made, whether in fee simple, or only to be used peaceably as a hunting ground. It could not impair the rights of third parties. Georgia was no party to the agreement, and it was her interest alone which was affected. And if her claims were not prejudiced by her admission into the Union, by what means has the power to convey away the right to soil and jurisdiction accrued to the United States? There are only two ways by which it could be done-the one legal, the other conventional: either by authority granted by the constitution, or by voluntary consent, and agreement of the State of Georgia. These are the only means by which title could have been derived, and transferred from the State of Georgia to the Indians; and if the guaranty at Holston, in which such implicit reliance is reposed, has neither of these requisites, how is it to be supported? Only by assuming the broad ground that the Federal Government has the right to sell and convey away the property of the State. Is there any gentleman here however federal or latitudinarian may be his opinions-who is willing to advocate and adopt that principle! Sir, I presume not. If this Government has such a right, may it not convey away a part of Kentucky or of Ohio? or the western part of Pennsylvania?

pendence of the States, being achieved by the joint effort, should, therefore, enure to the common benefit of allapparently forgetting that it was the cause of their association, and not, as the conclusion would warrant in believing, the vacant territory of the States. The unheeded remonstrances of the colonies and the declaration of our national independence embrace the objects of this momentous struggle; and, when success crowned their efforts, it was not supposed to have changed the ownership of property from the State to the United States. Congress, sensible of this, asserted no right in a legal contemplation; but appealed to the magnanimity of the States, from equitable considerations, to make cessions to them. That appeal was not disregarded, and the act of transfer is, of itself, conclusive evidence of the pre-existing right; and to the extent of the conveyances was the title transferred, and no further. I have higher authority in support of this opinion than my mere ipse dixit: the Journals of Congress are replete with proof: reference is made to the Journals of Congress, 16th September, 1776, 2d vol. page 380-15th October, 1777, 3d vol. page 345-June, 1778—25th May, 1779-1st May, 1781-and October, 1782. I trust, then, that I shall not be considered as betraying a want of respect to the memorialists, these self-constituted, political, moral, and religious censors of Georgia, (whose morbid sensibility and affected zeal betray all the evidence of febrile excitement at the recital of the wrongs of southern Indians, but who have afforded no evidence that the first impulse of sympathy has been elicited at the now miserable condition of their own)-I repeat I hope it will not be regarded as disrespectful to these volunteers in the cause of their Indian allies, in this instance, if, when their opinions conflict with decisions in the supreme judicial tribunal of this country, I should distrust the correctness of their conclusions. Whatever may be their claims to science, in general, to art, or theology, yet, in questions of right or constitutional

[blocks in formation]

law, Chief Justice Marshall and his associates must be esteemed at least their equals; and, in that case, the citizens of Georgia will be left to exercise a sound discretion in determining which of their opinions they will adopt. Let me now call your more serious attention to the decisions to which I have alluded; and, sir, there are two considerations, independent of the high character of the jurist who decided the cases, which should entitle those decisions to some consideration. One is, that they were made at a time, and under circumstances, which repel all supposition that they were even remotely united with political feeling, or dictated by partisan zeal. The other, that those who made them, so far from laboring under an overweening predilection in favor of State sovereignty, the current of their decisions has been adverse to the interest and principles contended for by the States. In the case in 8th Wheaton, Johnson vs. McIntosh, it appears that the Indians were in possession, and ever had been, of land lying in what was originally Virginia, being a part of the land ceded by her to the United States; that while they were thus possessed, they conveyed title to a company; afterwards, when the United States issued patents to this land, and individuals acquired possession under them, suit was commenced against them by those who had thus acquired title from the Indians. The Supreme Court, in the opinion delivered, states, that Virginia acquired by the treaty of peace with Great Britain, in 1783, all the rights of that Government; that the pre-emption right was con veyed by her to the United States; that the Indian title was a mere right of occupancy; that they had no right to convey, as fee to the soil was in Virginia at the time of the execution of their deed to the company. In the case of Fletcher vs. Peck, in the sixth volume of Cranch, such is the language used by the Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion of the court, page 128:

[H. or R.

that all claims to the Government property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof, were relinquished to them. It is evident, then, that the United States had no just claim to the territory at the commencement of hostilities, none at their termination, and acquired none by treaty. I have shown that all these rights which Georgia had acquired with her independence were reserved to her by the constitution. And in 1788, one year after the establishment of our present system of Government, under the constitution, the United States, when Georgia proffered to convey to her a part of her unappropriated territory, did not contend that she had any claim to it, or that the title of the State was defective; but declared that the land was then supposed to be too remote from the other colonies, and that its value was too inconsiderable from that cause to justify her acceding to the proposition. And, sir, if all the other acknowledgments of the United States which are recorded against her were obliterated from the records, the compact of 1802 contains an admission of property in the State, so strong and irrefutable, that independent of all other proof, it would be confirmation of itself. The gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. ELLSWORTH] in giving an historical account of the discovery of this continent, and the rights connected with it, assumed, as unquestionable, that the rights acquired from it have no connexion with the aborigines; that they only served to regulate the conduct of civilized nations, and only gave to the discoverer the right to extinguish the title of the natives. Why discuss this questionable proposition, when there were added to the rights of discovery the rights of conquest? I hold in my hand a volume which contains facts in relation to this subject aud to the Cherokee tribe. They acknowledged themselves subjected to the authority of Great Britain; and, not content with making the acknowledgment to Mr. Alexander, the King's agent, they "That the Legislature of the State of Georgia, unless despatched from Charleston, in the ship Fex, six of their restrained by its own constitution, possesses the power to chiefs, with the regalia of their nation, and placed it at the dispose of its unappropriated lands within its own limits, feet of the King. They took sides against us in the revoin such manner as its own judgment shall dictate, is a pro- lutionary struggle, and continued their savage warfare position not to be controverted." Again, in page 142, the with great fierceness until the Carolinas and Georgia overcourt continues: "The question, whether the vacant lands ran them; and, in the stipulations for peace, they admitwithin the United States became the property of the ted themselves conquered, and that the lands were theirs, States, was not a momentous question, which at one time with rights to soil and jurisdiction, so undisputably establishthreatened to shake the American confederacy to its foun- ed, that nothing is more preposterous than to suppose dation. This important and dangerous question has been that any of the States would permit an Indian tribe to compromised, and the compromise is not now to be dis- erect within its limits an independent Government. Inturbed. It is the opinion of the court that the particular deed, such a state of things cannot practically exist. To land stated in the declaration appears from the special ver- prescribe the limitation of power, and the extent to which dict to lie within the limits of the State of Georgia, and it is to be exercised by each, must be settled. If yielded that the State of Georgia has power to grant it ;" and con- to either, it would be incompatible with all rights of sovecludes with the expression of opinion that the Indian title reignty or separate national existence. If not yielded, a is not such as to be absolutely repugnant to seisin in fee on contest for their exercise would ensue. The action of the part of the States. This decision was made in 1810; both Governments could not be differently directed to, and, in 1790, the land which was the subject-matter of ad- and operate on, the same object, at one and the same time. judication was guarantied to the Creek Indians by the How is this clashing of jurisdiction to be reconciled ? Only United States as solemnly as was the territory of Georgia by a voluntary surrender of all claims to them by one of now occupied by the Cherokees at the treaty of Holston: the parties, and a submission to such authority as may be so, in every aspect of the cases in which they can be pre-imposed upon them. As well might it be contended that sented, they will be discovered to be analogous. The court admitted the proprietary right to be in Georgia in the one instance, and gentlemen now deny us any right in the other. Sir, if any additional evidence is required to show that the territory over which Government has extended her laws is within her limits, it can be afforded.

In 1763, the King's proclamation issued. In 1764, the royal commission issued to Governor Wright, describing particularly the boundaries of the province of Georgia. On the 25th day of February, 1783, and before the definitive treaty of peace, the Legislature of Georgia passed an act declaratory of her boundaries, which was confirmed at the treaty of peace by an acknowledgment, on the part of Great Britain, that_the“ States were free, sovereign, and independent," and were treated with as such; and

two Governments, co-ordinate in power, dissimilar in organization, and with a different code of laws, could harmoniously exist in the district of Columbia, when both claimed paramount and exclusive jurisdiction over its inhabitants; such a state of things would be subversive of all order, and confound in inexplicable difficulty and confusion all division of power. No one of the departments of this Government, or all united, can arrest the action of the State Governments in the enactment and execution of their own laws, so long as they move within their legiti mate sphere. It is a right conferred on the States, not by an act of Congress, nor by prescription derived from executive indulgence, but by the constitution--and an invasion of which, by Congress, the Executive or Judicial Departments of this Government, would be regarded by

H. OF R.]

Removal of the Indians.

[MAY 19, 1830.

the States as an invasion of the constitution, which, if sub- | not, as to times, and dictated to as to the manner of meetmitted to, only leaves it an existence in name. But, sir, ing in council, and were expressly prohibited from doing suppose the principles for which I have contended be suc- so without notice to the overseer, and the obtainment of cessfully controverted, and it is accorded to the Chero- his consent. I have not recurred to the statutory provi kees that they have a right to erect an independent Go- sions of Massachusetts in a spirit of animadversion. It is vernment within the limits of the States-if so, they have not my province to censure the policy of any State; an adan exclusive jurisdiction in enforcing whatever edict they junct of local circumstances may not only render expe may desire, and in the summary manner incident to their dient, but in some instances imperiously necessary, a course barbarous customs. The consequence is, that an Ameri- of policy which cannot be supported by abstract princican citizen, as has been the case with a citizen of Georgia, ples. The constitution of the country has invested the is arrested while passing through their country, and punish- States with the right to judge, and the discretion to detered-not after a jury has, according to the forms of law, mine the manner in which this authority is to be exercised; and the injunctions of the constitution, established his and we might as well deny the right to limit and regulate, guilt, for they are no parties to that instrument, and are as some gentlemen suppose we have the power to do, the not bound by its provisions, which prescribes that form of manuer of its enforcement. It is not doubted but that ber trial. And it is an undeniable fact, that, in proportion to repeated acts of legislation over them have been the result the low degradation of intellectual character of a people, of their pecular relations. The object in referring to them are they precipitate, cruel, and relentless. Self preserva has not been so much to show the manner in which this tion, and that protection which is due to our own citizens, jurisdiction was exerted, as to show that it had been uniforbid the existence of those evils. They are beyond en- formly exercised by her from and before the establishment durance; and, introduce as much refinement as you may of our present system of Government, and that its correctin your speculations about the nationality and rights of ness had never been questioned. I will not insist on that the Indians, Georgia will not submit to them. which, in this instance, I have no reason to expect, the practice of the charitable maxim, “do unto others as you would they should do unto you;" but I desire gentlemen to reflect on the gross injustice they will commit, the glaring inconsistency to which they will be exposed, in the effort they are making to debar Georgia of a right which their States have uniformly enforced, and against which a silent murmur of discontent is not heard.

Let us forbear to multiply remarks on this subject. I trust that no member of this confederacy would, if the power were possessed, impose restraints or obligations on a sister State, when, if she were the victim to their operation, she would disclaim the authority which imposed them, or that she would, in her sovereign capacity, exercise a power, and deny the right of its exercise to another. What, then, has been the conduct of the States towards Let us now direct our attention to the State of New the Indians within their limits? In Connecticut, the State York. There is not one in the confederacy, whose laws Legislature has extended its jurisdiction over them, and have been so intimately connected and interwoven with the exercised all acts of legislation necessary and incident to destiny of these people. There is not a hamlet or wigwam her sovereign character. She has appointed overseers or in the Onondagas, Oneidas, Cayugas, Tuscaroras, Mohawks, supervisors for them, and entertains no more distrust of or Senecas, but what has been visited by the effects of her her authority in legislating for them than for persons of authority. She has interdicted their customs, and substicolor, idiots, lunatics, or minors. If it is yielded that she tuted, in lieu of them, laws and ordinances suited to a more can interfere at all in their municipal regulations, either in advanced stage of civilization. Their property and liberty restraining their privileges, or defining and securing their are secured or annihilated by her authority. In one of rights, the principle is admitted, and the manner of en- her statutes, we find agents appointed to lease their lands, forcing this authority is conferred on the States. Whether and deprive them of the privilege of appropriating the controlled by feeling more demoniac then the savage, it is proceeds according to their own will. She has purchased to be rendered an engine of cruelty, or, with unaffected their lands, and forbid them selling to any one else; assignphilanthropy to be employed in the promotion of advan-ed a portion of it to the support of missionaries or ministers tages to them, is entrusted to the justice and wisdom of of the gospel; has instituted among them a civil code, and the States to determine, and there it may be safely re- made its provisions imperative upon them; limited the posed. In Massachusetts, the same unlimited acts of sove-time, and regulated the manner and qualifications of those reignty have been exerted. And, at the division and separation of the State of Maine from her, so sensibly impress ed was she not only of her right to legislate for them, but the solemn obligation imposed from having done so by regarding them as State paupers, that she stipulated the payment of thirty thousand dollars to Maine, to be released from all future obligations for their support or guardianship, And, until I heard the humble petition of the Passamaquoddies to this Congress for a little bark or a little wood, no doubt or apprehensions were entertained but But, sir, it is contended that the Indians of that State that all obligations, civil, moral, and political, had been are exempt from the ordinary rule which governs others; faithfully fulfilled. By the laws of Massachusetts, the that the disabilities which deprive Georgia of the right of State had guardians appointed, regulated their contracts, extending her jurisdiction over those within her limits, and declared them void unless approbated by their guar- have been obviated with New York, by an alliance or undian. The Governor and Council appointed commis derstanding with them. How this could have been effectsioners to partition their land. By another act of the ed, I am at a loss to determine. I have sought in vain Legislature, overseers were appointed, whose authority, for the compact, to ascertain its dates and terms. in many respects, was arbitrary and despotic. If an In- the constitution, the States are prohibited from making dian became habitually addicted to intoxication, or neg- treaties and forming alliances or confederations. lected the ordinary means of providing by labor for a treaty-making power be applicable to the Indians, the support, his liberty was forfeited, and the proceeds of his forming alliances or confederations must be equally so. servitude went to the support of his family if he had one; How, then, this extraordinary prerogative should be enotherwise, it was to be disposed of in such manner as the joyed and exercised by New York, and denied to other overseer of the tribe conceived most conducive to their in- States, is irreconcilable with an uniform constitutional systerest. By another statute they were limited, if I mistake[tem. Sir, the gentleman from New York [Mr. STORRS]

capable of sitting in council, has pointed out the mode of their choosing their officers, and prescribed qualifications, such as an exemption from the use of spirituous liquors for one year preceding their appointment; and has not only regulated the causes of forfeiture of personal privileges, but of property. In the law passed in 1813, is the following provision: "If George Crosby neglects or refuses to support Sarah Davis, or if John Terhue shall neglect to support Elizabeth Conquehue, they shall forfeit their lands."

[ocr errors]

By

If the

« PrejšnjaNaprej »