Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1829-12-15

ate, which are performed by yirtue q
powers conferred in the Constitution
Very recently, some of her publick mer
have asserted that the United States have
neither the power to make treaties with
Indians. nor to cede any part of the ter
ritory of State.
The power to make treaties with In.
dams is denied on the ground that trea
ties can be made with nations onlv. and
that communities Of Indians are NOT M.
fsons. Unfortunately for this theory !,
was VIGOROUSLY invented to answer a bar.
ticular purpose. 1t is not, and cannot be
entitled to the least degree of credit
Communities of Indians have been called
nations in every book of travels. qeoora.
ply, and history, in which they have been
mentioned at all, from the discovery q
America 70 the present dAY. Treatiss
have been made With them uniformly IN.
der the name of treaties, during this whole
period. The monarchs Of Europe, and
the Colonies of Europeans, were rarpetu-
ally making treaties with Indians, in the
course of the 18th and 18th centuries.
The Colony of Georgia always spoke Of
the Creek and Cherokee nations and
the compacts. which she made with them.
she called treaties. The trainers of the
Constitution must be supposed to have u.s.
ed language in its ordinary acceptation.
When the Constitution speaks of treaty,
1t certainly intends every sort of a com.
pact, which the universal voice of mankind
had designated by that name.
1t would seem, according to the present
doctrine Of Georgia politicians, that civ
ilized people may be called nations and
and may make treaties; but uncivilized
people are to be called Savages, and pub
lick engagements with them are to be de.
nominated-,ohat such engagements
are to be denominated we are not as vet
informed. There must be a new code of
National Law, and new set of writers
upon it, in order to help Georgia out Of
her present imagined difficulties II say
imagined because there is no real difficui.
ty--not the slightest. What are the dis.
tnctlve marks of a civilized people, and
who is to decide whether these marks are
found in a given case, are matters unex-
planned. Nor are we told n what respects
treaties between civilized nations are to
be interpreted differently from publick
engagements with an unciviized people.
A representative from Georgia said in
his place last winter, that these agree
ments with the Indians had improperly
been called treaties" Let it be borne in
mind that Georgia herself always called
them treaties. In subsequent part of his
speech, he spoke of the " bad faith" of
the Greeks in not observing the stipuIa-
tons which they had made in these "aoree-
ments; )" and to this alleged bad faith he
gave additional hard names Of" fraud and
perfdy." We may gather, therefore, the
conclusion, that savages are bound BY
their agreements, though these agreements
must not be called treaties. 1t is contend
ed, however, that the United States are
not bound by their agreements with the
Cherokees, because the United States
cannot. in their federal capacity, make
agreements 'oith savages, although the
General Government has the exclusive
power of making treaties soith civilized
nations--the whole of which philosophy
and logick, when thoroughly digested and
concocted, amounts to this that treaties
between civilized nations bind both the
parties; but that agreements with savage
tribes, while they bind the savages, on the
penalty of determination, to observe eve-
ny one of their engagements, leave civiliz-
ed parties to break every one of their en-
or agreements" whenever it
suits their pleasure or their interest, to do
SO. This is the morality to be incorporate
ed into the new code of National Law,
with another section, declaring tina. all
parties to an agreement, even though it
be sailed treaty, have the perfect right
to decide whether they are themselves
civilized or not, and whether other parties
are uncivilized or not.
II is by no means favorable to this theory
that Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson
had the temerity following the uninter-
rupted current Of example and authority,
which had come down from the discovery
Of America to treat with Indians as ma
tons, and to consider engagements
with them as being treaties within the
of the Constitution. From the
origin Of our General Government to the
present day, every President of the Unit
ted States, not excepting the present in
cumbent, has used the words treaty and
nation in precisely the same manner.
Besides, the President and Senate must
decide, from the nature of the case, what
is treaty, and what is not. Even the
Supreme Court cannot pronounce docu-
nent not to be treaty, which the Presi-
lent and Senate have pronounced to be
,ne; for the Constitution expressly de.
;lares treaties to be I" the supreme law of
he land and the judges in every State
hall be bound thereby" Iftreaties are
he sunreme law they cannot surely ba