Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-09-11

Ii
The Congress of the United States, since 1889, f
never did pretend, by any act to the jurisdiction,
veregnty and right of SOIL of the Indian lands with
in the lin its of any of the states. The United States
own lands in Alabama and other states; but they
it by the same tenure that other individuals do. In
the act of 1902, regulating trade ard intercourse
with the Indians, and for preserving peace on the
frontiers, nothing Is provided for but what the title OF
the act indicates. Congress had power to pass such
law, and nothing more that body never pretended |
by regulating trade and intercourse with the Indians,
appointing agents, &c. to assume the right of soil in
the states where Indians resided und still reside and
it is not expected that they will assume that
power against the expressed provisions of the
stitution and against the powers which the states
served to themselves.
Upon the authority of treaties opponents rely
mainly Tor support. We can prove that this support
is weak as the arguments they have advanced, to
show the sovereignty of the United States the
the soil of Georgia.
Treaties have been concluded by the United States
with Tie Indian tribes residing in the territory of
The United States. Were the contracting PARTIES in
those treaties equality, with regard to ndepen
dcnce and sovercignty' Did the United States, one
of the parties, treat the Indians the other party
as sovereign and independent na,ions2 Never. Did
the Indians ever conclude treaty with the United
States, without conpulsion? Never. The Indian
tribes arc not independent nations, and consd
cred themselves as such. They coded lands to
the United States willingly, and with the view of
benoittng themselves From the discovery A
ne!ca to this day. every treaty made with the Indi
tion. Though lamcnuble fact, it i no less true.
MI the eastern states Of this Union redeemed their
territory from the Indians, in the manner just
mentioned. The middle. southern. and western
states, acquired lands by the same process. And
another anicntabe fact but no less true, is, that
the treaties made with the Indians have never
been considered binding on the other party.
! w hatcrer provisions We're made in them, what
ever guarantee was made to the Indians, when
ever II was the interest ofthe stronger party TO abro
gate the conditions OF the treaties nicans were soon
,l-crn in al.
treaties with more cessions of land which in their
turn, and IN time gave place other treaties Where
arc the Indians who occupied Pennsylvania, New
ORR, ana the eastern states? Where are the Indians
who once covered the whole territory from the Chat
tahooche to the Mississippi, the Missouri The Ohio,
&C: How many treaties have been made with the
f lnd'aus IN which lands guaranteed them, he
Iore theg all enlgra'cdo the other side of the Mis-
sssippi?
As the treaties with the Indians were not made
With independent nations, but were contracts
LOT c purchase OF possessory right, they could be
f. cancelled and renewed at pleasure when one party
was induced 10 part with more land or extilange
!clr residence in one part of The couhtry,ta for
ldence IN nl:other part. All The treatioa with the
creeks and Cierokees haye been made with no 9th
or view aEr for no other purpose. Those treaties
nave succeeded each other with the sane tormality
Gnu wshtIe same obligation on the part OF the In
{elas 20 ABANDON the poSsessory right they enjoyed
Inc power TO conclude treaties with tie Indians,
resAling within the limits OF state, has not been ex-
ptssiy granted to the government OF the u. States.
general would be greater with the Indians,
VINO We're likely to pay respect and obedience to
the VIEWS intentions and demands Of that govern
i.ient, than to the government of sin gle state, which
u'u not possess the and military force to COM
pei submission to its mandates. The power as
sumed the Congress Of the United States express
Ell 1t IN 78i, with respect to treaty Pennsylvania
INTENDED to negotiate with the Indians for the pur-
chase OF land, because ''the public interest might
nave been deeply affected by negotiation for such
purchase independent OF, and unconnected with the
general treaty to be holden the behalf of the Uni
ted States. For in the opinion of the committee
the Idea OF division Of councils of separate interests
and competition in purchases which two distinct
treaties must have impressed the minds of the In
dams, would not but have had tendency to diminish
the dignity and authority of government in their
estimation, and expose both the United States and
she individual state to unreasonable and extravapant
imposition, and our public councils to great emb2r
rassnentS 1t follows them considering the powers
given to the general government by the constitution
That Inc states In which Indians reside, could con-
tract with them, independent of the authority of the
United STATES. and that if the have submitted
10 the power assumed by the general government it
was with the view ofayoidn9 difficulties and clash
ing OF various interests, which the general govern
nient could only reconcile. The compact OF 1902,
du not transmit to the government of the Unted
states the power to conclude treaties with the In
H!aus residing III Georgia. The state OF Georria
cedcd an immense tract ofiand the u States with
the condition that the expense for distinguishing the
Indian title to the land within her limits, should be
incurred by them. If this condition had moi heon
expressed, the expense would certainly have had to
be incurred by Georgia: The United States would
have refused Georgia, as they did New York, any
appropriation towards the extinguishment of the In
dian title But for the obligation in the compact of
lGo2 all the expenses attending the several treaties
which have been concluded will. the Greeks and
i Cnerokees, would have had to be paid by Georgia
We could extend further our remarks nm fIie nh
lec': hut we abstain under the impression that we
have said enough TO shew the lalacy ofthe REASONING
ana positions OF the writer's in the National IntcIlI,
genceF and other papers
From NE National IileIiigencer.
! PRESENT CRISIS IN TIE CONDITION OF