Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-06-30
Gov. TRoUP.

THE NEW CREEK TREATY AGAIN.
The Documents cannot be read withou; astonish-
ment and indignation. Advertisement az the con-
duct ofthe Secretary of War; IN giving at least a
tacit assent to the gross fraud contemplated against
the Creek Nation, and indignation at the villainy
attempted to be practised by the Creek Delegation,
in appropriating TO themselves, three Cherokees,
and half dozen others, hundred and fifty
nine thousand dollars of the money to be paid by
Government as the purchase of the Creek lands
The gentleman at Washington who forwarded
these documents TO us justly remarks, that " whilst
FRAUD had been been imputed TO the first treaty
but not proved, il is imputed, and proved and
ADMIT FED against the second" Two Cherokees,
John Ridge & Jos. Yam (who accompanied the
Delegation to Washington were to have fobbed
$4,000. a Cherokee Chief, Mai. Ridge (the
father of JOHNNY was to have had $40 900 TO
.Ueno,Cee, notorious hostile of the Ocfuskees,
who fought against Gen. Jackson in the battles of
Emuckfau and Horseshoe, and commanded the
party that murdered M'Intosh, $4,000 was al
oued in the division of the spoil.
The reader will remark in the expose from the
War Department by Thomas l.. M'KenneY, that
after the basis of the Treaty had been agreed on
but before ii put in form, the Cherokees, Ridge
and Vann, made known to the Secretary of War
the {; intentions" Of The Creek Delegation to re-
quire reservations for them (Ridge and Ysnn.)-
The Secretary declined making reservations in ia
vor Of these impuden; fellows, but agreed at once
10 give each Of them FIVE thousand dollars in money
Was this bribery, or not? What claim had Ridge
and Yann Of Inc Cherokee Nation 10 reservations
of Creek lands, or to a sum Of money in lieu there
of?
MIR Dwight OF Mass who eDdeavored through
out the investigation Of this dirty business TO screen
the Secretary of War from merited censIre, gives
false coloring to the most Objectionable part of
the transaction, in the report he made from the
Committee Of Conference 10 the House OF Repre-
sentatives. His report says From the facts
stated in the documents submitted, il appears that
the Delegation from the Creek Nation, by whom
the treaty was negotiated, proposed an extensive
reservation Of lands for the benefit Of Ridge Vsnn
aud others, which was declined by the Secretary,
and that they afterwards confined their efforts TO
benefit those individuality adstrbution of money
Now we appeal 10 the Documents themselves, and
70 the common sense of every man who can read
them, for our justification in asserting that Mr..
Dwight drafted bis report as TO play off
" Fankee tTict' on the House, more crediable
10 his " cufcHcss' than TO his candor and imegrI-
~. The Documents (Which are before the public)
did not justify Mr.. Dwight IN stating, hat the
Creek Delegation proposed reservations OF land In
favor OF Ridge, Yann and others; nor that, toe
Delegation afterwards confined their efforts to bene-
fl those individuals by distribution OF money
The facts, az sbewn by M'Kenney's expose, are
these--ihe Secretary Of War, on a bare sugges-
ton by Ridge and Yam Of the generous " intsH-