Star.
London, England, 1815-02-01 00:00:00

~or Grenvilkt. and thrit takettion. Vitt the United
11/States now. for the first lifitt, deny the absolitte in-
'dependence of the Indian: tribes, and chins the ex-
clusive right of purchasing. their lands. require, how-
ever, some notice. If the United States had now
asserted, that
.the Indians within their boundaries,
veltb have acknowledged the United. States as their
only protectors, were their subjects, living only at
pat:ranee on their lands, far from being the first in
making that as:.-ertioN they would only have followed
the exasuple of the principles uniformly and invaria-
bly asserted, in substance, and fr:quently avowed-in
kspress terms, by the British Government itself..—
s,Wrat wit the atteanikg of all the colonial charters
*finned by the British monarchy, front that of Vic-
i ia, by Eliz ibeth, to that of Georgia, by the ins-
. iate pre:ecessor of. the present king, if the In.
. qs .were the sovereigns and proprietors of the
ilstbestowed by those charters t What was the
Weaning of that article in the treaty of Utrecht, by
•which,pre Five Nations were described in• terms as
s Wee; to the dominion of Great Britain t QT that of
I e treaty with the Cherokees, by which it was de.
tel
. alicrthat the' King of Gieat Britain granted them
a epiivilere to live where they pleased. it those sub-
jects were indetendent sovereigns, and if these tenants
itL the license of the British King, were the rightful
lerds of the lands where he granted them permission
itn Jive ? What was the meaning, of that proclama-
tion of his present Britannic Majesty, issued in 1763,
jeelating all purchases of lands from the Indians
null and void, unless made by treaties held under the
sanction of Lis Majesty's Government, if the Indians
had the right to sell their lands to whom they pleased?
What was the meaning of boundary lines of Ameri-
can territories, in- all the treaties of Great Britain
with other European Powers having American pos-
sessions, particularly in the treaty of 1763, by which
she acquired film France the sovereignty and pus-
session of the Canad as—in her treaty of peace with
the United States in.l7B3?—nay, what is the mean-
ing of the north western boundary line now proposed
by the British Cjenmissioners themselves, if it is the

riF,htful possession and sovereignty of independent
Indians, of which these boundaries dispose Is it in-
deed necessary to ask, whether Great Britain ever

has pertnitted, or would permit, any foreign nation,
or without her consent, any of her subjects, to ac-
quire lands from the Indians, in the territories of the
Hodson Bay C.impany or in Canada ? In formally
protesting against this system, it is net against a no-
vel pretension of the American Government—it is
against the most solemn acts of their own sovereigns,
against the royal proclamations, charters, and trea-
ties of Great Britain for more than two centuries,
Irons the first settlement of North America to the
present day that the Ili itish Plenipotentiaries protest.
Front the rigour of this system, however, as practised
by Great Britain and all the other European powers
in America, the humane and liberal policy of the
United States has voluntarily relaxed. A celebrated
writer on. the laws of nations, to whose authority Bri-
tish jurists have taken particular satisfaction in ap-
pealing, After, staung, in the most explicit manner,
the legitimacy of colonial settlements in America, the
exelthion of all rights of uncivilised Indian tribes,
has taco occasion to praise the first settlers of New
#.;ilgland, and the founder of Pennsylvania, in hiv-
ing purchased or the Indians the lands they recoil/14
to cultivate, notwitlistapdem their being furnisheal
with a charter from their sovereign. It is this ex-
ample which the U.iited States, since they became
by their independence the sovereigns of the territory,
-have adopted and organized into a- political system.
Under that system the Indians residing within the
United States are so far independent, that they live
under their twin customs, and not under the laws of
the United Sratet ; that their rights upon the lands
where they iiih.ii-ait r*.r hunt are secured to them by
hdundAries deliaed in amicable treaties between the
United States nod themselves; and that whenevtr
those i)ountiari4s are varied, it is also by amicable
and voluntary treaties by which they receive from
the 'United States ample compensation for every
right they have to the lands ceded by them. They
are so lar dependent ,as riot to have the right to dis.
pose of their lands to any private persons, nor to any
power other than the United States, and to be under
their protection alone, And not under that of any
other power. Whether. called subjects, or by what.:
ewer name designated, such is the relation betireesi,
them and the United States. That reletionis-neither'
asserted now for the first time, nor did it orginate
with the treaty of Grenville. These principles have
been uniformly recognized by the Indians themselves,
not only by that treaty, hut is all the other previous
as well as subsequent treaties between them and the
United States.
0 TheXteaty of Grenville neither took from the
Indians the light, whichthey had net, of selling lands
within the jur4diction of the United States to foreign
Governments or snhjecti,noeceded to them the'rigjit
of exercising exclusive jurisdiction within the boun.
'dary line assigned.- It-was merely declaratory of this
public law, in .rehstion to .the patties, fonoded ont
principles previously and universally, ecoguised. It
left to to the United. tates.the rights of exercising so-
vereigntye
and of Sie iring soil, and bents no analogy
4,.
to the proposition o Great Brit4in wbkli. require:the
abandonment of both. The. British Plripbtentiaries,
state in their last note, that Great Britain is ready to
enter into the *lime engagement with respect to the
Indiani living Within their-line of demarkation, as that
Which is, proposed to the United States.. . . ,
46 The undersigned will not dwell on the immense
inequality of value bet Ween the two territgie‘which,
under such an arrangOment, would be Assigned, by,
each:nation, respectively, to the Indians. and• which
alotie would make the-reciprocity merely nominal.
The condition whicb woOld be thus imposed on Great
Britain not to siequire'landi in CantAaa foga the In-
diana, would be productive of no. . advantage to the
United States, and is, therefore, no equivalent for the
sieriace required of them. They do not consider that
it belongs to the United Statca, in any respect to in.
terfere with the concerns of Great Britain iii.. her
American possessions. or with her policy towards
the Indians residing there ; and.they cannot consent
to -any interference, on the part pl 9!eat. Britain,
'with 'their own concerns, and particularly . with the'
Indians living within tbcir territories.. .
44 may be the interest of Great Bri ain:tpAithit her
otj
rawle:theien.ct6o4ittlitiZrrtaiod,dal,e'twoetlsite.
Air
.pporr• '
Eiviluesteprialeaubot4.
toto
i be for ever inhabited by scasterst‘tribet of hunters I
but it.wooklintliet a a itai• itsjoalltak ifteVatediltatas