Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-10-04


| Under these circumstances, Sovernoi Iroup be-
came Governor of Georgia"
| Col 1roup was elected Governor Of Georgia in
Nov 1923: previous to that period, the detntt're
boundaries within which The Creeks were TO reside
as ciriilsed people, were ftcice altered by treaty
at the lndian Agency In ISIS and at the inaiah
Springs in 1921. The Chiefs who formed these
treaties, with the exception of Mcintosh, are get
aire: some of them were present when Mcintosh
was killed and although concerned in further
alterations OF land, have not yet suffered the
penalty of the laws passed shortly after 1914, con-
| shutting such alienation capital crime. The law
passed shortly after 1914, was never heard Of
until subsequent to the LIST session of the 18th
| Congress, and the manifesto, which is styled
a law, was published after Congress had appro-
priated 80 900 to hold treaty in 1924 with the
Creeks, in consequence of information from the
Executive, that negotiation with them would pro-
baby be successful 1, would be grateful circum-
stance if these egregious errors of fact in the
Reviewer could be imputed to ignorance; unfor-
,unately the treaties OF isis and 1921, are par
icularly noticed in the Report of the Secre-
tary of War, which is one of the subjects OF his
review; it is presumed it was read before it was
reviewed
The Reviewer proceeds to remark on the dis
pute between Governor Troup and the U. States,
condemnng of course, the Governor for his indeco
rous style to the Presidcnt and Secretary of War;
and says,
3d eXtract.--s'The national authorities ne-
therto be buIiied driven into measures deroga-
tory 10 the country, ard the Creeks res0fatety re-
fused to part scith another acre of their land.
they said they had sold all they could spare, and
that they only reserved what sufficient for their
| comfort and subsistence In this state of things,
as the Executive threatened to drire the Indians
from their possessions by force, i, became
| saiy for the u States to take into consideration
the respective rights and obligations OF the Creeks,
the United States, and the State of Georgia"
| This whole extract is pure Imagination. No
letters from the Governor TO the President and Sc
cretary of War, about the Greeks, had been writ
| ten at the period alluded 10. The Greeks never
had refused TO sell another of their land,
| had the Governor ever threatened TO drive them
from their possessions. This aborious reviewer,
whose historical sketch is recommended for lis
cuu0cy, has mistaken the CherokeeS for the
| Creeks both lnGian tribes, but as distinct and
separate as New York and Georgia. There was a
correspondence of the General and State Govern
mens on the subject of the Cherokee lands, not,
however, of the character described by the review
er, submitted TO Congress. committee of that
body supported the professions OF the State Go
vernment, and recommended resolutions respecting
the Cherokee lands, and reported bill making an
| appropriation for holding Creek Treaty, as Con-
gress had been informed by the Government that
| there was every prospect that cession could be
obtained from that tribe. The bill passed The
resolutions not discussed for want OF time at
the first session of the 18th Congress, and a, the
second session were not touched, it was suppos-
ed that successful negotiation with the Creeks
would be followed by cession from the Chero-
KEGS; thus rendering an expression of the opinion
| OF Congress on the Questions presented unneces-
sary.
| The entertainment of the rights of the Creeks
OF the United States and OF Georgia, is attempted.
So lar as the opinions of the author can De under
stood, in the midst of great deal of unintelligible
jargon, the Indian right of property in the soil
g Uds absolute, but modified indeed, by our
rightto occupy such portions of il as then did not
need" This absolute modified right of soil is i'm
| portant or worthless according 10 the tribunal
which is to decide he question what part of The
soil Is necessary for the Indians? If this question
is to be decidedly the Indians the right is absolute
without modification: if to be decided by the
whites, then this absolute right OF soil is bare per
mission to occupy much the whites ildec
proper to alo them. 1t is in this sense the author
uses the term, Indian right of properly for he
speaks of this right becoming absolute by treaty,
within the limits defined by it, In short, his can
ing Is that the Indians derive from their treaties
with the United States their absolute rights of pro-
perty, subject to but one condibion that when the
property Is sold it snail be sold 10 the IT, States
until then, they may divide it among themselves
and become a civilized people. That the right of
the United States acos an absolute right to Judge
how much land toas necessary for the Indians Is
Hoto by treaties, right OF pre-empton, when the
Indians choose TO sell. That the right of Georgia
derived altogether from the compact of 1902, is
simply the right TO receive from the United States
the Indian land when sold to the United States
The reviewer states that the authorities of Georgia
contend thar the fee simple of the Indian lands was
vested In the State, by the execution of the agree
ment of 1902. This assertion is altogether false
Georgia claims that absolute right which is by the
reviewer alleged to have belonged to the United
States, prior their treaties with the Indians She
alleges that the contract of 1902 did not impair that
absolute right, but merely imposed upon the Unit
ed States the expense of removing the Indians
This claim of Georgia has been sanctioned by two
decisions of the Supreme Court the first FLETCHER
vs.. Peck) in case in which the Georgia western
lands were the subject of controversy. But these
decisions clearly in favor of the State
than the doctrines of the reviewer; except that the
reviewer has bestowe led upon the United States the
rights of Georgia. When did that right vest in the
United States? The dominion of sovereignty
claimed by Great Britain the territories of the
States formally transferred TO each of the
States within its limits and still retained, I'M
less subsequently surrendered by the adoption of
the Federal Constitution, by solemn legislative
acts of those States. BY the Declaration of indie
pendence, Georgia acquired all the rights of Great
Britain TO grant and dispose of the lands now form
ing the States Of Georgia, Alabama, and Misss-
sippi. She exercised this right by transferring
Alabama, and Mississippi to the United States
Of the residue she is proprietor, she ,oas of the
,DhOle
The compact oflSO2 made no change in this pro-
perty; gave power to the United States or to
the Indians not previously possessed by them; but
imposed the burtben already mentioned, upon the
public purse.
The opinion of the Supreme Court is, johnson
VS.. Mcintosh, Wheaton, 5ss) 1t (the power OF
granting landsl has been uniformly exercised over