Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-02-18

Gus doctrine 1t seemed TO him that when they
came 10 view this Question fairly it involved all the
great principles as 10 the power of this Government,
70 make roads and canals. Supposiag they were
,ke me reason assigned by gentlemen in support
OF the present measure that this road twas
ior the purpose of facilitating the transportation
OF Inc mail. In the route from Baltimore some
wne'e on towards Philadelphia, i, was lust as ne
oesssry that the road should be repaired the mi il
Is oostructed almost daily on tina, route for the
want oil proper road, and, in some weather il is
almost impossible TO get at all and was it not
JUST as expedent to have the route from Baltimore
towards Philadelphia repaired, so as to facilitate
the transportation OF the mail between those two ci
"es' as u was to have road through the Chicka-
saw or Choc'aw territory, to facilitate the transport
ta'ion OF the mail between New York and New
orleans! Cer'ainly il was Mr. &. said he should
IKE 10 see whichw the clause in the Federal Con-
stituiion under which they claimed authority 10
make This road through the State of Mississippi; he
couid not see any reason why this circumsia n ce
OF 'he road passing through the Indian country
shouiu chanSe the principle in the smallest de
gree or confer any new powers the general 90
Vernnent. His ideas on this subject, Mr.. c. said
ne mad occasion 10 submit 10 the Senate some lime
"so'anu II was not his intention to go into any
remarks that would make him repeat what he had
then advanced. There was no mower in This Co
yernment 10 make this or any other road tbrounb
the state
MT Ellis said, the road did not pass though one
seventh part of the State of Mississippi and il was
impossible for the State Government of Mississip-
pi 10 have any authority those lands till the
ute TO them was extinsushed. The gentleman
seemed TO suppose that the great pow err which had
so often been controverted in that House was now
ABOUT to be advocated by the friends of the BILL Mr.
T. SAID ne was not about TO advocate il; nor 10
intricate an idea OF this kind that this gov eminent
possessed the power 10 establish road or 10 cut
canal through the several States without their an
PROBATION; but the power does exist in the Con-
gress OF the United States, under the existing state
oil things relating TO the Indian country within the
several States, to establish roads, in the exercise of
the provisions established by The Federal Cols,itu-
ton.
Mr. Eaton said treaty had been entered into
In 1871, between the United States and the Choc-
taw Indians The question of State rights had
not then arisen, and the Government of this
country was in the hands of Mr.. Jefferson In
uer such an administration, attempt would have
been made TO enter into a treaty with distinct So
veregnty, that went to invade the principles of the
Constitution. BY the 2d article of that treaty. the
Indians gave their consent that wagon road should
he constructed through their lands and if the idea
was a correct one, that to make such a road was
unconstitutional, was it not strange that the Senate
should not have conceived this idea in 1901 or if
they did conceive it, that they should have acted
as they did! Mr.. E. said, road had been made
from the State OF Georgia, to the State of Tennes-
sees which was at present, the main highway be-
tween these two States at this time A road had
also 6sen made through Alabama TO Fort ST oddart
ana the road which was at present the subject of
discussion, was considered in this House and an
appropriation made Tor H. Ever since this Go
| vernment had existed, Mr. E. said, they had pro-
ceeded on the principle that the Indians are a dis
'inct soveregnty:it was an anomaly that one sove-
reiSnty should exist within the orbit of another but
they always had proceeded this principle and i'll
they had any right TO interfere with them, why did
they proceed with them in the character of sove-
regnties! Mr.. E. was present when the Post Mast er
General made an inquiry of the Mail Contractor for
THIS section of the country, to the state of the
road, and the answer was; ii Is almost i'm ,assable
The principal part OF this road opened IN $50 l.
and the portion for which they now about TO
make an appropriation was opened some years "a
60 II Is against the religious principles of an In
dian to work in any way, and the consequence is.
that the roads through their country, AT worse than
elsewhere. If there was any force in The obiec-
tion urged by the gentleman from Georgia, q, Feast
so tar back as 1901, something would have been
thought about ii in the Senate, when they entered
into this treaty with the Indians; by the "a article
OF which, privilege is granted TO the u. s. to open
| a road through their country.
Mr. Chandler had doubt the road wanted re-
pairs but The treaty announced nothing more than
that the u. S. had exinguished the Indian title 20
that portion of the country. If the State OF Msss-
sFp had no jurisdiction over the land let them come
to Congress and ask for il.
! Mr.. Eaton commended there was no cession OF
property, on the part OF these Indians, by the pro-
visions OF this treaty; there was not even a ces-
sion Of sovereignty. They in their sovereign capa-
city Indians, yielded their consant to the Uni
ted States to open road. The United States could
not give the State OF Mississippi any sovereignty
overit.
| Mr.. Holmes observed, that the Indians were
considered az sovereign within the States wherein
they reside, unless the title and Jurisdiction are ex
tinguished. We in this singular predicament.
The u. States is great wheel, there twenty
four little within it,, and there are several
1 others within these little wheels. IL the United
States have no right to make road though either
of these soyereignies, and The Indians will not
make road, il follows that we are to have no
road. MIR. IL said he did not perceive the force OF
the Constitutional objection bearing tina, part of
the State that is under the jurisdiction of the Indi-
ans. The State cannot exercise It's laws il cannot
administer ustice its laws could not reach the III
dian country. The State culd not lay out a road
through the Indian country, unless they legsIate for
the Indians, and consider them citizens OF tie
State There might arise very grave question
out of all this, whether Indians, within the limits
OF individual State, can be considered as a So
vereign power, acting with and negotiating with
the United States. rhe Constitution of the United
States, in apporiioning the Representatives among
the several States, in that enuneration says " and
excluding Indians not taxed, lhree-flihs of all
other persons.' The Constitution contemplates
Indians not iaxed not coming within the power
of the Government Of the United States. But
there is still another question behind that; tho
question whether the State has the power to tax
the Indians within the limits Of that State. Until
they have done that, TIL they consider the Indians