Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-09-09


found to induce the weaker party to conclude other
treaties, with more cessions of land which IN their
turn, ana IN timc place to other treaties Where
are tue Indians who occupied Pennsylvania, New
YORK. ana the eastern states? Where are the indians
who once covered the whole territory from the Chat
tahooche to the Mississippi the Missouri, the ONO,
&C: How many treaties have been made win the
INDIANS, In which lands guaranteed to tien' pc
iore tey All en,s TO the other side oi the MIS-
sissippie
As the treaties with the Indians not made
with independent nations, but mere contracts
tor tic purchase of poSsessory right, they could be
cancelled aud renewed at pleasure, when one party
was induced to part with more land, Or to exchange
tneir residence III part OF the Tor res
idence i" another part. All the treaties with the
creeks and Chcrokces have been made with no 9TH
CT view and for 10 other purpose. Those treaties
have succeeded each other, with the same iorniaity
and with tine same obligation on the part of the Ia
dams to abandon the poSscssory right 'hoy on]oyed'
Thc power IT, conclude treaties with the Indians
resulting within the limits nj state has not been eX-
pressly granted To the government OF the u. States
The power assumed because ic Influence III ,iic
general government would 10 greater with the Indians,
VINO were likely IL more respect and obedience To
the views, intentions and demands OF that govern
mcnt, than To the government OF single state, Which
did not possess Tire means and military force TO COM
' rel submission 10 Its mandates. The power
snmcd, the Congress OF the United States express
ed 1t IN l73, with respcc; To treaty Pennsylvania
INTENDED - negoslatc wiki the Indians for the pur
chase Of land, because 1.-THE public interest might
I
purchase independent OF, and unconnrcied with the
general treaty TO b hc,den the behalf of the Unit
ted States. For in the opinion of the Committee,
'hc idea Of division OF councils, Of separate interests.
dLl competition in purchases which two distinct
treaties must have impressed on the minds Of the In
dianS, would no. but have had tendency to diminish
che d'sny and authority of our government in their
estimation, and expose both the United States and
e Individual state to unreasonable and cNtIavagant
imposition, aud our pubic councils to great em.r
'aSSncn'S. II follows then considering the powers
given TO the general b. the constitution,
That the states III which Indians reside, cuuld
tract with them, independent OF the authority of the
United States, uUd that II the states have submitted
tn the power assumed by the general government
was with The view favoidng difficulties, and clash
ing OF various interests, which the general govern
mcnt could only reconcile. The Compact OF 1902,
dd not transmit TO the government of the United
States the power 10 conclude treaties with the In
dams residing i'll Georgia. The state of Georgia
coded an Immense tract ofand to the u. States with
the condition that the expense for cNtingushing the
Indian title TO the ani within her limits, should b.,
incurred by them. II this condition had not been
expressed, the expense would certainly have had To
be incurred by Georgia: The United States would
nave refused Georgia, as they did New York, anv
appropriation towards the extingushment of the In
dian title. But for the obligation i'm the compact of
l8O2, all the expenses attending the several treaties
which have been concluded with the Creeks and
Cherokccs, would have had 10 be paid by Georgia
We could extend further our remarks on this sub
lect; bat abstain, under the impression that we
have said enough sIew the falacy of the reasoning
and positions Of the writers in the National lntclh-
gcnccr and other papcfs.