Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-02-15

OF large part OF the Indian tribe which were one .
party tothe treaty, and who complained that those
rized so 10 do; new treaty was formed, the We
ry first article of which declares, that the former
treaty. made at the Indian Springs, was entirely
annuiled and done away.
This is the point. which the gentleman in his
statement seemed to Mr.. w. to have wholly o.
mioed, and it was certainly a most important |
point in the case now. The claim brough, |
forward and insisted upon by Georgia, If he an
derstood it, was, that this first treaty at the Indian
Springs. being valid treaty. had the operation to
vest the title TO the lands then coded in the State
of Georgia, and that the nulifcstion of this first
| treaty, which afterwards took place at Washing
ton, and formed the first article in the treaty OF
Washington could not, and did not have the effect
TO dvest Georgia of the title to those ands.--
That, sad MIR. W., is the question. Ii nay seer
tainly be very grave quesrion--a question of
great moment, respecting which, l shall not be
| In any hurry to give my opinion.
| Now, that is the Georgia side of the question
The United States side of the question is diffe-
rent. The United States Government, in its
part, contends, that the second treaty does annu
the firs'; that the parties who made it had power
to annu the fret treaty; that, by express terms,
1t is annulled, in every section clause, and article
of it; and that therefore there is title in Geor
gia to any lands not embraced within the new
treaty. On this ground the Government of the
United States called upon 10 enforce This .rra-
| ty, which was the law Of the land according 10
| the pre.exisng statute law. And what is that
law! That whenever citizens ofthe u. States shall
interfere, whether as trespessers surveyors,
10 lines lands guaranteed 10 the Indian tribes
10y treaty, the United States shall resent such in
fractions of treaty strulations, and shall punish
such persons offend against them. Now, by
the last treaty with the Creeks, this protection of
the United States was guaranteed to the Creek In
dams, respecting all their lands lying beyond
certain line. The law Of the United States, in
| so many words. provides distinctly for this case.
The State Of Georgia. by its constituted au,hor-
lilies, acting on their ground of construction, and
directly in the face OF the second treaty, (whe;her
righituy or not shall not now attempt TO decide
sent their surveyors that line with orders to
survey the land as pertaining to Georgia. The
Creeks Immediately called upon the u. s. 10 fulfil
the guarantees OF protection contained in the l4;h
article of the treaty of Washington. Georgia pro-
poses to maintain her surveyors by military force
and the U. $. on the other hand, is called up N
by the Indians TO maintain the faith of treaty
with them. This is state Of things deeply to be
regretted: it is regretted by than by me.
But, regretted or not, that is the question issue.
II Is plain that If Georgia considers herself called
TO maintain her surveyors by force, and the u. S
Government considers itself called upon to main
tain the treaty by force, there must be a collision.
Now, under such state of things. wha, obiec-
ton can there be to give 10 the Presidential com
munication the usual course TO refer il to a COM
Nnen all me laCtS be ascertelnel, the
, question deliberately examined, and by whom, per
haps, another measure may be reported as expe
dent tt mean the measure referred in the joint
resolution submitted by the gentleman from Geor
g'a-an appropriation of money TO buy out the In
dian Title. For myself, said Mr.. w. even if
were ever so well satisfied that Georgia was
wrong, should still be opposed to going into ex
tremes, if the matter could possibly be arranged In
a'y other way. II, in the lille, the whole
SUBJECT can be arranged, satisfactorily, by new
treaty, for The purchase of the remaining land Ger
tanly every honorable and fair man would wish
that II should be. The amount OF money neces
sary TO accomplish such object, would be of
comparatively little consequence. However, there
did appear TO Mr.. w. to be great propriety in
sending the subject to some committee. Far be
from me, (sad he,) 10 desire be among those to
whom ii Is sent have no itching for the tici.ion
of such subject.
But, to whomsoever ii shall go, the gentleman
from Georgia need be under alarm as to the eff
iect OF Their report. That report, whatever il shall
be, will be subjected 10 the acute and de!ibe, tie
examination Of the gentleman himself, and of ev
cry other friend OF the Georgia Interpretation. If
the report be adverse. gentlemen kere to rerly
TO IT, Ii there be flaw in it, they will find ii. They
are not too unskilled complain Georgia is abI :,
represent ed here, and any of a Committee
would no doubt be promptly exposed
The gentleman from Georgia asks, what mean
when say tht, if the States attempt unauihoriz ed
u
possibility, and their peril? DO mean TO drive
them out oithe Union that the other states shall
make war against them? Sir. the gentleman has,
in the alarm OF his imagination, or from the love
OF elect, exaggerated and strained what is a very
common phrase. when say that, If an indi-
vIdual does particular thing he will do il al his
peril, do we mean that ii he does il, be will be an
initiated! II one man says of another that if he
does such thing, he will do it on bis respon-
sb'lity, Is 1t to be understood meaning that, If
the man does II, he mist be psioed: Sir, stand
by the expression say HAT State, like an ndi-
vldual, must necessarily take the peril which me-
cessarIly iollowsa wrong action, i-it commits one {;
which means no more than that they must incur
the peril necessarily accruing from such course
OF action. i mean that if il shall be found that
these States, by extending their legislation over the
Indian territory, come in .colliion with the u S. .
and with the provisions of treaties they mus, be
answ cradle for the consequences
And, Sir, is there peril bat on one side OF
this question! The Government of the United
States incurs the same liability that State incurs
The liability OF having acted improperly, and
violated the Constitution of the country. Sir, I'M
I'll lose my own OF self respect , I believe
that sball be incapable of using towards any
State, any language incompatible with the respect
which owe to myself, aud the deep re pect
which very sincerely feel towards all the States.
MIR. W. concluded by saying, that if this commu-
nicaiion should not go to one of the Standing
Committees OF the House, he should then move
| that II 90 TO Select Committee, but most certain
| Iy with no wish that lie should be one of ,ha,
Committee.
Mr. Forsyth again rose. The advantage which
had been taken OF the proposition which he had
submitted for an appropriation Of money to quiet
the alleged claims of The Creek Indians, TO part
lr.Ef Ha Ia,,l ,.,,I ,,. ....I..-