Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1829-12-22

'so W OcotS GID, anu east OF Tue present
line between Alabama and Georgia.
The great outlines Of this compact are.
|. The parties agree upon division Of
claims, which they had both made to the
same lands.
2. The United States give Georgia a
sum Of money, not as the price Of lands, nor
as the price Of claims to lands, but "as a
consideration for expenses incurred by
Georgia, IN relation to said territory"
3. The United States engage to extiD-
guish the Indian title TO lands within GER
tain limits, " as early as the same can be
lpe0ceobly obtained on reasonable terms"
Georgia now complains that the United
States have failed to fulfil this compact.
But in what does the failure consist The
money has been paid. The Indian title to
three quarters of the lands, which belong
ed to the Indians in 1902, within the i iSs
tended limits, has been extinguished BY.
the United States, in the manner prescrib-
ed and Georgia is now in actual posses.
sion. The remaining quarter has been
repeatedly applied for; and the United
States have always stood ready to purchase
it of the rightful owners, :. on reasonable
terms" AT least, this has been repeat
eddy and officially declared to be the fact,
by publick functionaries Of the U. States.
But if Georgia can convict our national
authorities Of culpable negligence in this
respect, let her claim fair indemnify. In
order to conviction, however, something
more than mere assertion will be necessa-
ry. The evidence Of neglect must be
produced. 1t seems to be morally certain,
whether the United States shall be able to
vindicate themselves or not, that the re-
naming lands of the Cherokees cannot be
peaceably obtained" of the rightful own
ers; and if any indemnity is really due
to Georgia, let her receive it.
| The reader will not fail to see, that the
Creeks and Cherokees could not be in any
manner affected, as to their right of soil
and jurisdiction, by compact to which
they never consented, and in the forma-
ton of which they had no agency. If A
covenants with B for valuable consid-
GRAFTON, that he will purchase the farm Of
c, as soon as he can obtain it lawfully,
and at a reasonable price, this is good
contract, and will remain binding on A
till he discharges himself from it. But it
would be absurd to say that G is bound
by such contract. He may refuse to
sell his farm on any terms, or he may ask
an unreasonable price for it. In either
case. SO long as A stands ready to pur-
chase, at reasonable price, fescannot be
charged with breach Of contract. If he
has been culpably negligent, by not taking
suitable pains, or making reasonal offers,
B can doubtless claim an indemnity. Ii
would be rather hard measure upon C,
however, to turn him out of his house,
and drive him from his farm, merely be-
cause he refused to sell his property.
Such an administration Of law would not
be much admired. except perhaps in the
court of Ahab Ojezebel.
Nor would it alter the case, if A and
B at the time Of making the contract, en-
pected that c would sell his farm at the
first reasonable offer. There might be
strong indications that C would become
an incorporate man, spendthrift, a sot,
vagrant, and that his farm would speedi-
ly pass into other hands +: and vet these in
dications might prove fallacious. c might
become thrifty husbandman keep his
farm clear of debt, and leave it unincum-
bered to his heirs. And is he to be blam-
ed because he turned out to be an indus
trious man, and thus disappointed the I'M
! favourable representations Of B, who
looked upon the farm with covetous eyes
Georgia says, that she expected the II.
States would have long since extinguish-
ed the title to all the Indian lands which
she claims. Very well. What if she did +?
The history of every man, and Of every
community, is full Of disappointed expecta-
tons. In the Spring Of 1918 the plant
ers Of Georgia expected to get thirty cents
a pound for cotton, in many subsequent
years; and they made their purchases Of
land and slaves in that expectation; but
they are now glad to get ten cents pound.
This disappointment is hundred times
more felt by each man individually, than
the failure to get lawful possession of a
tract of Indifferent land, in the remotest
corner of the State.
The terms of the compact between the
United States and Georgia save the rights
of the Indians, and were manifestly in
tended to save them. But if the United
States had agreed to make .forcible pos
session of the Indian country, and to put
Georgia in possession, such an agreement
would be absolutely void, for several rea-
sons. First, it would be palpably and
monstrously unjust. Secondly. it would
be in opposition to previously existing
treaties between the United States and
the Indians, which treaties were the SUI
preme law of the land. Thirdly, it would
be in opposition to treaties between Geor-
gia and the Indans-treaties never abro-
gated nor annuIIed; and, therefore. Geor-
ria conld not insist unon its execution.