Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1821-02-13

! may thSi Sicit " NJ ~ Cbe' ANoA3 Ii IL
cause they are not citizens, they may be
kept out, with equal reason, at least may
Indians, aud all other aliens be also Kept
out And yet, said he, we know the
government is in the constant habit Of
ceding to the Indians, portions of the ma
tional domain In exchange tor portions or
theirs. Ii the argument of the gentle
man, therefore, proved any thing, it
clearly proved too much. 1t Is true,
said Mr.. G.. that clause of the constiiu-
ton does not give the Legislature tits
excluding power, in relation to Indians
or aliens, but ii gives power, which if
sanctioned, does by analogy sanction the
doctrine OF this gentleman. And by de-
nying the right ofthe Legislature, to ex-
ercise this express power, we necessari-
ly deny its rights to exercise the i'm
piled.
For one Mr.. c. would be extremely
glad if the state had this excluding pow
or in relation to Indians. They are a
troublesome population, and the state
which he had The honor to represent
might finally for the want Of such power
find herself encumbered by the settle
ment of additional tribes wlthin her
borders, an event by Ito mean desirable.
While upon this branch OF the subject,
Mr. {. hoped he would be pardoncd Tor
amoment's aggression from the question
Immediately before the house. He said
that the correctness of the authority
which the treaty-making power had been
heretofore exercising, in disposing Of the
territory OF the United States by cesslon
to the Indians, he thought deserved
serious examination. He had been inn
pressed with the idea, that the express
delegation oil the power to dispose OF the
territory of the United States TO Con-
gress, ought to exclude the idea OF the
existence oil similar power, and parti-
cularIy by implication, in any ether de-
partment Of the government. He said
it was true that the unfXcd lines OF, and
disputed title to, any portion OF territory
could only be settled by treaty; and in
the case of war, where the cesson OF a
portion Of territory was made sine qua
non, to the restoration oipeace, This be-.
ing case OF necessity, he supposed it
Wobiu GioC W Sohbl'N W. VIZ way
making power to make the demanded
cession. But when the indisputable title
was vested in the United States, and no
such necessity existed, he thought it
worthy of the arafal.ndi.ot inquiry 70 de-
ternlilfe what were the limits OF the trea-
ty-making power on that subject.
| Mr.. G.. said there was another view OF
that clause of the Missouri Constitution,
under which it seemed still more OBJ
viousIy in violation Of the Federal Con-
stitution. Congress, he said, by virtue
ofihe general power which 1t possessed
to dispose Of the territory of the United
States, for the purpose OF obtaining the
military services Of persons as well OF
this as OF every other description, had
offered them a land bounty, TO many OF
whom, and embracing free negroes and
muia,toes, patents had already been is
sued, for lands in Missouri. He said
persons OF this description, to his own
knowledge, had purchased land III Hi
nois, and he had no doubt they had also
in Missouri. Whether they had or not,
however, did not vary the case, the prin-
cipe was the same, III the soldier S
well as the purchaser. Therefore, ne,
Mr.. c. begged leave TO say the govern
nent of the United States vested fee
simhle estate in those lands. The gov
eminent, he said, made no other descrlp-
ton Of ,itle.-This title he considered TO
consist of the possession, the right OF
possession, and the right OF property
and he thought when he asserted that the
government had guaranteed all these
features ofthe right which it vested, both
to the soldier and the purchaser, that no
honorable member would hazard con-
troversion OF that assertion. Under this
guarantee he considered the United
States incompetent, unless for public
purposes, and then only by paying fair
equivalent therefor, to deprive them OF
this property; and yet Missouri, sub
ordinate legislature, if her constitution
be allowed to operate, does virtually take
it away, without paying any equivalent
whatever. For if person be not allow
ed TO enjoy the possession of his proper
ty, he is virtually deprived oft.
But, said he, the United States are
bound both to the soldier, and the pur-
chaser, to protect him in the enjoyment
of his properly, it constitutes, by every
principle of law and reason, part OF the
original contract. The government for
this obligation has received full con-
sideration, and yet Missouri, in direct
violation of that provision Of the federal
constitution which torbids any state to
pass any "expost facto law, or law I'M
| nnir;nn the nhIimation of cnntracts.N has