Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1829-12-29

Campbell and Meriwether, eminent citi-
zens Of Georgia, acting as commissioners
OF the United States, and being exceed
lngly desirous to obtain a cession of the
Cherokee country for the use of Georgia
these negotlators, in the year 1928. saw to
the Cherokee nation -" The sovereignty
Of the country which you occupy is in the
United States alone. No Sta.e, or foreign
power, can enter into treaty or compact
with you. These privileges have passed
away, and your intercourse is restricted
exclusively to the United States" The
doctrine is here plainly asserted, that the
General Government only could treat with
the Indians /; and that separate States
were as really excluded from such an
agency as foreign nations were. This ex-
elusive right of treating, which the com.
mlssloners call sovereignty, was not an en-.
croachment upon the natural rights of the
Indians, it being matter of express and
positive stipulation with them, perfectly
understood BY them, and operating for
their protection.
A Select Committee of the House of
Representatives, in Report made to Con.
gress, March Sd, 1927, cite a passage
from letter, addressed, by the Senators
and House of Representatives in Congress
from Georgia, to the Secretary of War,
dated March 10, 1924, in which the wri-
tiers are understood to say. that the Chero-
KEGS are " to be viewed as other Indians,
as persons suffered to reside within the
territorial limits of the United States, THAT
is, the limits of the peace of 1888 and
subject to every restraint, Dhich the policy
and po'oer Of the General Government re-
quire to be imposed on them, for the in
terest of the Union, and the interest of a
particular State, and their own preserva-
tion." Here it is implied that whatev.
er restraint is imposed upon the Indians
must be imposed by the General Gov
eminent. as well when "the interest of
a particular State" is concerned, as
when "the interest of the Union" is to
be affected. This is certainly the only
rational construction which can becgiven
to the whole history of our Intercourse
with the Indians. since the adoption of the
federal constitution.
But there is one more source of evil
dence on this subject, which is of still
more striking character, and which should
set the question at rest in the minds of the
people of Georgia. 1t is the constant adj
mission, on the part of that State, in her
most solemn acts of legislation, that the
Indian lands within her chartered limits,
are acquired for her use, through the me-
dunn of the treaty making power, which
is vested exclusively in the United States.
This is manifest in the very title of her
laws, as well as in the enactments.
The statute book of Georgia contains
an act, which was approved by GOVERNOR
Troup, June 9, 1925, of which the fol-
lowing is title, viz -
IAN act to dispose of and distribute
the lands lately acquired by the United
States, for the use of Georgia, of the
Creek nation of Indians, by treaty made
and concluded at the Indian Spring, on
the 18th of February, 1926"
In the first section it is enacted, "That
the territory acquired of the Creek nation
of Indians, by the United States, for the
use of Georgia, as described in articles of
a treaty entered into and concluded be-
tween commissioners on the part of the
United States, and the chiefs, head men,
and warriors of the Creek nation of In
dians, &c.
This is perfectly fair statement of the
case. II the territory was acquired of the
Creek nation, it manifestly belonged to
the Creek nation before it was thus ac-
quired, and if the territory, belonged to
the Creeks, it was plainly under their ju-
risdiction; for, as Gov. Troup said, in his
letter above quoted, which was written
only six days before signing this act,
" soil and Jurisdiction go together" If
it was acquired by the United States, this
was done, because, under the federal con-
as it has been understood and
the United States have the
exclusive power of extinguishiDg Indian
title. If it was acquired by a treaty, it
was because the Creeks. being a nation,
could dispose of their common property
by treaty only. If it was acquired for
the use of Georgia, then Georgia had not
the use previously; but the United
States had covanted with Georgia, that
they would obtain this title for her use. as
soon as it could be obtained peaceably
and on honorable terms"
Abundant evidence might be adduced
to prove, that Georgia uniformly, till after
this period, admitted the exclusive power
Of acquiring the Indian territory to be
vested in the United States. But addi-
tional proof is unnecessary. The man
who will not be convinced by the citations
already made, must be beyond the reach
Of conviction.
1t has been said that the Supreme