American watchman and Delaware advertiser., 1825-09-13

ripbt 20 aoproprise the soil without the consent of
rhe aboriginal inhabitants. Treaties were made
with them for that purpose, form the earliest settle
rnen.s of the country. In some OF the provinces,
he Indian title was considered as complete, SO that
/, urh, be transferred from an Indian to white
man without the consent Of the government and
The determination OF Andross to subject those IT,
ties IN New England to quit rent or patent tax,
caused rebellion, which ended in his deposition
and imprisonment. In other parts OF the country,
The colonsts was compelled TO purchase through
the governments. But in province did the colo
niss conceive their title TO be good. so long as The
Indian title remained unextinguished To the honor
Of the country be il recorded. that in no instance
did the public authorities sanction the abominabe
doctrine, that civilization gave to the white man a
right to exermnate enslaye the aboriginal, or TO
conhscae appropriate the property and land OF
his tribe These Indians, whatever may be thought
Of that wisdom ol the Providence who ordered it,
the original occupants and owners othe country
They had enjoyed it from imme mortal time. Our an.
csstors indeed had right 10 land on this continent,
and TO occupy much racant soil as was necessary
Tor their accommodation; but neither they. nor any
oher men, had right TO drive The aboriginas from
heir possessions. This right Of accommodating
themselves by occupying vacant land in wilder
ness, must be eXerci,ed not to Interfere with
The rights Of others. II is founded upon pre-.
Sumption that the Deity intended the soil for cul.
!ivasion but the Deity also created the Indian 10
enjoy the sn after his manner and unnecessarily
TO deprive him of his limited enjoyment would not
only be unjust, but cruel Such The great and
lmnu,able principles Of morality and natural juris
prudence.
Ii, then could not, when unshacked by trea
lies, eSpel these people from their possessions
iyw we cannot, now after defining their boundaries
acknowledging and suaran,ying heir right 10 this
land, encouraging them to quit their vaerant habi,
Tor those OF cullivators, and when We have land in
abundance without interfering with hem. Should
sc not By such act Of cold blooded, deliberate,
unnecessary per6dy. justly incur the scorn ard 10
dignaon of mankind: This question is not answer
"a BY reference to the articles Of agreement be.
ween the U. States and Georgia. The United
States only had The right to purchase the Indian H.
te. when they willing TO sell II. ad this was
all ,tey could transfer 10 Georgia On the other
hand, this right was encumbered WITH an obligation
p respect and guaranty hat tiils The Indians had
srlght, by treaty. 10 our protection and guarany
sud 10 our assistance in the great work OF civi,izne
themselves. fhey also had right OF property, b,
me law Of nature, to The soil. mndlh fed ndee d, BY
cur tight 10 occupy such portions as they did moi
need; but as to wha, necessary ior them, their
gil, was absolute, and not 10 be affected BY any
claim al civilized man. This right has been So Tar
changed by treaty to become an absolne right
20 wha, is within their prescribed lmis subject on
" TO this condition. that if they conclude 10 pat with
;her land, it shall be sold 10 the United States Until
hey do that, they may use it as hunters or agrcul
iuri,ts. They may even divide it amung themselves
and become civilized people; and this government
was hound, before the aSt cement with Georgia, and
y now bound, 10 aid them III effecung that desira
bic object.
Georgia, therefore, could not acquire any right by
rs !sagreement with the United State, except right
nus limited; and she took H. SUBJECT 10 all its &C.
Sompanying obligations.
We should not have been ihus minute in epfor.
cng principles, which had imagined 10 be AK
IONS in morals and Jurisprudence had not the doc
fr,nes, advanced by the Governor and congressional
5eiesaton OF Georgia beer d ec'ly opposite to
these plain and. what we must still consider Ge mon
allable principles. The authorities of hal state
contend, that upon the execution OF the agreement
ot so2, the fee simple of the Indian ands was YES.
led 10 the state of Georgia, and hat tie aorcnsls
after that time, only occupied the soil BY The suffer.
ance and al he mercy Of the y. S,
This position we have shown TO be indefensibe.
Ahe lee simple OF the Indian lands not affected
BY the agreement OF 1902 The Creeks were not
parties of that treaty. Hence If he fee simple be.
nnged 10 them, It was not tfansferred; and il the
Snated States owned II they transferred it, subject
10 the Indian title, and encumbered with all the OBJ.
legations they had assumed
but in truth, the United States had no fee. and
transferred none. They agreed 10 extngui,h the
Indian title within the STATE oil Georgia when il
could be Psaceaby obtained upon reasonable terms
BY this cautious limitation Of the agreement, the
United States manifested their respect for the abort
ainal title, and for the obligations imposed by for
rner treaties, and Georgia only acquired right 10
the land when that title was eXtingushed, with the
consent OF the Indians, the government Of the state
well knowing. ct the time Of making the agreement,
that The United States were bound TO civiIize the
indians and TO attach them 10 the soil as farmers
and as herdsmen, and that. necessary conse
quence, portion of their land would be always re.
tanned by them. The right Of occupancy. to which