The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1814-12-10

those two forts could give any claim to his
Britannia majesty to large cessions of terrific
ny, founded upon the right of conquest and
the undersigned may be permitted to add,
that even IT the chances of war should yield
to the British arms. momentary possession of
other parts of the territories of the u. S. such
events ~cnl0 not alter their views wit. re-
gard to the terms of peace to which they
would give their consent. Without recur-
ring to examples drawn from the revolutiona
ry governments of France, or to a more re-
cent and illustrious triumph Of fortitude i'm adj
vers'ty, they have been taught by their own
history that the occupation Of their principal
cities would produce no dependency, nor
induce their submission to the ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ct their empire or to the abandonment of
one g! the rights which constitute 1 part
OF their national Independence.
/ Tire general proposition, that il was. ccn-
sstent with the principles Of pubic law, and
with the pract e of civilized nations, to in
clnde allies in treaty Of peace. and tDpro-
vide tor their security, never was called in
question by the undersigned. But they have
denied the right Of Great-Rritain, according
t, those principles and to her own practice to
Interfere in any manner with Indian tribes re-
Siding within the territories of the u States,
as acknowledged by herself, to consider. snch
tribes as her allies. or to treat for tilem with
the U. ). They will not repeat the facts and
arguments already brought forward by them
IN support OF this position, and which remain
unanswered The observations made by the
British Plenipotentiaries or the treaty of
Greenvi!le, and their assertion that the T.
Sites now, FOR the first time, deny the abso-
ute in3e. ndence of the In,lian tribes and
clam the exclrs We right of purchasing their
lands, requires. hawever, some notice
i the Uui;, d States had now asserted, that
W ci,>h sl,,-,
acknowledged the Uuitad, States as their cniy
protef tors, were their SUBJ cts. living oulv at
suiferance on theft lands, far from being the
hrst III making that assertion, they would only
have followed the example of the principles,
unitorr'ly and Invariably asserted in substance,
md frequently aTowcd in express terms, by
the British government Itself What was
the meaning of all the colonial charters gran
ted by the British monarch, FROM that of Vir-
glnia, by Elizabeth, to that of Georgia, by
the immediate predecessor Of the presen,
KING, II the Indians were the. soveregns and
Proprietcrs of the lands bestowed by those
Characters What WIS the meaning of that
ART Gle In the treaty of Utrecht, by which the
i've ma iCns wee described, ia terms. as SUBJ
ject to the dominion of Great Britain or that
OF the treaty with the Cherokees. by which
1t was declared that the King of Great Bri-
tun granted them the privilege to live where
dent sovcreigns, and if these tenants, at the
licence of the British king were the rightful
lords OF the lands where he granted them
permission 70 live (? What was the meaning
OF that proclamation of his present Britannia
majesty issued in 1763, dec larine all purchases
of lands from.the Indians null and void unless
made by treatcf held under the s9nction
81 his msjesty's government, if the Indians
had the right to sell their lands to whom they
pleased What was the meaning ofbounda-
ry ines OF American territories, in all the
treaties of Great Britain with other Europe
an pewers haying American possessions,
particularly in the treaty of 1865, by which
she acquired from France the sovereignty
and poss ssson of the Canadas In her treaty
OF peace with the United States in 1885 nay
what is the meaning Of the north western
boundary line now proposed by the British
commissioners themselves, if it IS the right-
mi possession and sovereignty OF independent
Indians. OF which these boundaries dispose /,
Is 1t indeed necessary to ask, whether Great
Britain ever has permitted, or would permit
any foreign nation, Or, without her consent,
any OF her subjects, to acquire lands from the
Indians IN the territories Of the Hudson bay
company, or in Csnadaa In formally protest
ing against this system, it is not against a no
vel pretension Of the American government
1t IS agnst the most solemn acts of their own
soNereiSIls, against the royal proClamations
charters and treaties of Great Britain. foy
more than two centuries, from the first settle
Hent OF North America to the present day,
that the British plenipotentiaries protest.
From the rlgor Of this system. however, as
practiced by Great Britain, and all the other
European powers in America, the humane *
liberal policy of the United States has voIun-
tarily rclaZed A celebrated writer on the
laws "t nations, to whose authority British u-
rists have taken particular satisfaction in ap-
peallnS, after stating, IN the most explicit
manner, the legitimacy of colonial settlements
III America, the exclusion Of all rights of I'M
civilized Indian tribes, has taken occasion to
praise the first settlers of New England, and
the / under Of Pennsylvania, in having pur-
chased OF TIC Indians the lands they resolved
to eultisate notwithstanding their being fur
nisiled with charter from their sovereign.
1t is this example which the United States,
since they became, by their independence, the
sovcieiGns of the territory have adopted ard
organized into a political system. Under that
system, the Indians residing within the Uni
ted States are so far Independent, that they
Iye under their gYn ccstons, and not under
the laws OF the United States: that their
rights upon the lands where they inhab;t, or
hunt are secured TO them by boundaries de-
tned In aTnicable treaties between the United
States and themselves; and that whenever
those bcundariesare varied, it is also by ami
cable and voluntary treaties, by which they re-
ce1ve from the United States ample compen-
Sa.lOn tor eve y rigt't they have 10 che lads