Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-09-06
tr,om the Washington News.)

which, thought important in constitutional rIsnt Of
view, has never been touched upon since the foua-
ton of the federal constitution because, in all pro-
liability, material evil had till now resulted from
the power exercised by the federal government over
the territories occupied by the Indians in severa!
states OF the Union. But the encroachmen's Of
The federal government becoming more and
more alarming, we thought it our duty to call the
attention OF the people 10 subject till tins time al
together neglected, s in the discussion OF which tie
state OF Georgia is deeply concerned Weoier' the
remarks with the hope, that other citizens, more
conversant with the constitution and laws OF the
| United States, will take the subject uP, and de-
monstrae and prove the assumption by the genera!
government OF power not consiituiionaiiy deiesa-
ted to il, produce sufficient authority TO show
upon what grounds the general government has ex-
crcised almost unlniied jurisdiction over the
lands occupied by the Indians residing within the
boundaries of the states forming the American I'm
ion, the territories ofthe United States not included.
| by the articles Of confederation, the Congress
was contided with the power os 90 regula ing tie
trade and managing all affairs with the Indians
members oiany of the states, provided that the e-
gisative right OF any state within its limits be
not intringed or violated 1t appears plainly, that
the power conceded to the Congress, respecting the
Indians, did not extend 10 concession of jurisdic-
dicuon within the territorial limits o. any of the
states AID even during the time the states Were
governed by the articles of confederation, it was
doubted whether Congress had he pow r to regulate
the trade with the Indians residing within the limits
OF any ofthe states. In the federal constitution the
power is granted to Congress to {" regulate COM
merce with the Indian tribes without the provis-
ION mentioned in he articles of confederation |,
seems, then, that the states have delegated to the
FEDERAL government the power only of regulating
commerce with the Indian tribes residing, 1--WE con-
ceie the point within lie limits of the states, as
wen as within the boundaries Of the territories of
The United States. The question arises, conse-
quen'iy, what is the extent of the power thus
granted, 'to regulate commerce with the Indian
troes! Does 1t imply grant of Jurisdiction in al
civII, criminal, and political matters3 or does i,
IMPLY SIMPLY the power 10 regulate all matters
connected with commerce, trade and traffic1 This
Is We conceive the only Interpretation that is
10 oe SiHen TO the power in question, because in
'he same clause OF the constitution the power is
granted to Congress to g regulate commerce with
foreign nations, and among the ststes'' which as
aurtdiy cannot DE implied to give any jurisdiction
20 me federal government over foreign nations or
over The states lfthe power, by implication, gives
jurisdiction 10 The federal government over the land
occupied by the Indians residing within the limits
OF tle states, 1t must be implied also in regard to
foreign nations, which would be indeed as ridicu
ous as 1t would be arrogant the United States to
claim jurisdiction over naiions that are as ndepen
dent and powerful In the constitution nothing
more Is mentioned respecting the Indians The
conclusion, therefore, 10 be drawn from the clause of
the constitution, quoted, is that the federal GO
vernnent has only the power to regulate commerce
win the Indian tribes; which poYv implies nothing
more nor less than the regulation of all matters an
pertaining to commerce, trade, traffic, or an inter-
change oil commodities, the appointment of agents,
VINO are, or should be, merely commercial agents.
me authority TO superincid the trade carried on
with the indians, and TO justice rendered to
all parties IN their commercial transactions with
EACH other.
We will admit that laws have been made by the
federal government, and treaties concluded with
the Indians, by which the q. States government
assumed, besides commercial jurisdiction, civil.
Criminal, and political jurisdiction over the land oc-
cupieo by Indians residing thin the limits of the
states Bat are not such laws, and such treaties
null and void, II they do not accord with the letter
ana spifit OF the constitution? If the federal 90
vernment has claimed aad exercised an unlimited
jurisdiction over the lands occupied by the Indians
the power must have been der ed from the consti
tuition. The federal government could not have
exercised II by the law of precedents; for we know
no such law in this country; it cannot claim the
right TO exercise it by the laws il makes. for ac
co ding to the spirit OF our constitution, a law is
nuIi and void which IL not made agreeably 10 the
tenor oil that constitution. In what part ofthe con-
stution, then, is the power question delegated to
the federal government For our own parts we
must say, that 1t Is to unaccountablc how the
federal government can exercise a civil criminal
ana political jurisdiction over the Indians resid-
ing within the limits of the states. We would
DEFY the ingenuity OF man 10 consrue that clause of
me constitution, (" 10 regulate commerce with the
Indian tribes" in such manner as to give 10 the
federal government the power aforementioned.
We will take the subject in another point Of
view BY the constitution, no state shall enter
into any treaty, aiiance,or confederation; and the
president " shall have power, by and with the adj
wee ard consent of the senate, to make treaties
hese TWO clauses OF the constitution aude doubt
less 20 treaties with foreign nations, sovereign and
independent as the United States are themselves
and not to the Indian tribes which have never been
acknowledged by the United States as independent
nations, though treaties have been concluded with
iheIn. IL The federal government has concluded
treaties win the Indians, IL was a power, il exer
cised not deIivatve from The federal constitutions
but which was conceded by special laws of the
states. How could The federal government make n
treaty WIN an Indian tribe residing within the Il
mis- OF state, without the consent of that state
In the treaty OF 1888 with Great British, the limits
OF the United States defined BY the grants
ana charters oil the Bri sh kings, the limits OF each
State were defined All those limits are nearly the
s,e"' the present iime except in those states, Vir-
gina, North Carolina, Georgia, sc. which have
cedtd portion of their territory, Of which new
s."es nave been formed. In the constitution of
~ 90 ~ .','itS arc sPecIiied. within which So
vereignty and jurisdiction appertain exclusively 10
her. How, then, Can the federal government ex-
ercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over territory
which belongs 10 sovereign and independent state.
II the Indian tribes are sovereign and independent
The liAiis Of Georgia cannot extendto the bounda
ries specified in The state constitution; and the fed
eral government claiming superior jurisdiction over
The Indian tribes without doubt by the law of the
strongest, can, by treaty, dee Of gift annex the
Dherokee land, either TO Alabama or Tenncssco n