Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-07-27

dispute.
1t may also be inferred that the govern
ment wcrs disposed to believe the Chero-
kee title superior to that OF the Cnicka sd VS..
When it is considered, that the Greeks
possessed the sea-coast Of Georgia, & that
the Cherokee possessions extended south
OF the high shoals of the Appalachce, and
intersected the Coosaa at the Ten Islands,
it appears highly improbable that the
Creeks should have enveloped the Chero--
kee lands on the west, by extending to the
Tennessee river west of the Coosau. This
improbabiiity is greatly INCREASED by the
consideration, that this claim OF the Greeks
is connected with, and principally rests up
on, their assertion, that the Cherokees ne
yer owned any lands south of the Tennes-
see river. This is SO far from being correct,
that all the settled parts of Georgia, west
of Little river, have been purchased from
the Cherokees, as far south as the shoals
of the Appalachee all of which it is be-
lieved, are south of the bend of Tennessee,
unless the northern section of FRANKLIN
county should be an exception.
In the year 1886, shortly after the Che
ro&ee treaty, before stated, the same COM
missioners concluded a treaty with the
Chckasaws, in which the Chickasaw hunt
ing grounds are defined as commencing on
dividing ridge between the Tennessee and
Cumberland rivers, north east of the mouth
of Duck river, running on the said ri ge, to
the Ohio-down that river to the Missis-
sippi, to the NatChez district The dehni
ton OF their hunting grounds in this treaty,
includes no part of the bend of Tennessee,
south OF Duck river, and no part -of the
lands claimed by the Cherokees, which, it
is commended by the Tennessee papers is
comprehended within the Creek cession.
In the year 1894, General Washington,
then president of the United States, exceu>
ted letters patent. in which tue Chickasaws
are described as living upon, and owning
the lands in the bend of Tennessee, as far
east as to include all the waters of Elk re-
yer. and to cross the Tennessee at the
Chickasaw Old Fields thence across a
neck of land to Tenchacunda Greek, a
southern branch of the Tennessee, and up
the same to it's source then TO the waters
OF Iombigby. that is, to the west fork of
Long Leaf Pine Greek, and down it, to the
line Of the Chickasaws and Choctaws, a
little below the Trading Path. The boun-
Diary described in these letters patent, en-
brace most of the land claimed by the
Cherokees, & supposed by the Tennessee
papers to be comprehended within the
Creek cessioD, and a greai deal mere, ex-
tending to tie Black Warrior.
We are wholly ignorant of the grounds
upon which these letters patent were issu-
ed but it is manifest, that Gen. w ashing-
ton was then either unacquainted, not only
with the Creek claim, now set up for the
first time, but with the Cherokee title to
the lands lying in the bend of Tennessee
also, which is Clearly recognized by the
treaty of 1875 or the evidence produced,
must have clearly established their title,
in opposition to that of the Cherokees. 1t
is not an object of Importance to determine
the validity of their respective CLAIMS, in
tAe course of this enquiry.
Such is the written or recorded evidence
which the case presents. On the part OF
the Greeks, it is contended, that they had
a settlement on the Tennessee, some time
since the year 1898, and that this settle
ment, and the path crossing that river some
where opposite to Madison county, called
the Creek Path, are evidences of their til
tie. To this it may be replied, that the
CherokeeS have also had settlements on the
south side OF the bend of Tennessee and
that the Old Fields, called emphatically
the ChiCkGsazD Old Fields, in treaties and
pubic documents of the nation, are proofs
equally strong in favor of each of these ma
say that the Cherokees never bounded nm
on their lands south OF the Tennessee. 10
make this declaration, they have the strong
est inducements. AS the United States
have fixed line between the Creek ces-
sloE and the Cherokees. regard for con-
sistency will not admit of their reviving that
claim against the Chickasaws, for the same
lands.
1t they can, therefore, defeat the Che
rokee claim, their own remains unClisputed.
But this IS not the only consideration which
leads them TO make this assevcration. 1t
the Cherokee claim is established on the
south of Tennessee, as far as Caney Greek,
aud the Flat Rock, their title to the north
of that river as far as the mouth of Duck
river is still more clearly estab ished. -
This claim, whatever it is worth, is the
property of the United States. Under
these circumstances, it is manifest, that the
declarations of the Chckasaws are entitled
to but little consideration.
IF the Cherokee claim is established on
the north OF Tennessee, we obtain a coun-
try nearly of the same extent, and perhaps
OF greater fertility than that which is left
in the possession of the Cherokees on tie
south side OF the river In addition to the
evidence already stated in support of the
Cherokee title, it appears by the minutes
OF ladian proceedings, furnished colonel
Meigs by colonel Hawkins, that in the year
1902, it was agreed in council by the Greeks,
that the Cherokee claim crossed the Coo
sau at point little below the Ten Is