Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-08-06
SPEECH OF MR.. slbRRS, OF N. Y.
(coNrrNtrD

Hne SeneCa nation stu CAn 10 hOlI their lahCS nm
der their original ile. But Kew York has intcr
est IN tbcm The pre-emphve right conveye
to Massachusetts Gany yeats ago, and Is held by IN
dividuals Under purchases flom that State. l hav
noticed III the Executive Journal, that, the Oath
February, 1927, conveyance by treaty from The Sc
neca nation tor part OF they lands to some vi hest
Individuals, made In the presence Of Commissioners
OF the Unned States, was aid before the Senate bJ
MIR. Adams. On the 2ath o February, 1928, reso
luton to rafy 1t vas ne9atived, the Seuute being
equally divided on The question On the goth M arch
the following resolution was submitted by one CT the
Senator'S from Georgia, Mr. Bernen:)
Resolved, That Oy tho refusal u the senate "a
ra'ity the treaty the Seneca Indians, it isnot
tended to express any disapEobation OF the terms
the contract entered into by the individuals who
parties tnat contract, but merely drsciain any
power the subject matter.
This resolution was modf.eu OH the 4th of April
by omlting the latter words, and inserting To
read, ito disc!am The necessity Vt an interference by
the Senate with the subject matter, and passed in
that form. These proceedings struck
what novel. and find that the Senate depar ted this
instance from former practice same subject
under MIR. JeheIsons administration The treaties
between the SenecaS and Oliver Phelps as wcil rs
the Holland Land Company, for perfectlnr the same
pre- emptve right were LAID before the Senate by Mr..
Jefferson, and formally ratified IKE other treaties
There Was but one dissenting VOTE Mr.. Wlgh: OF
blaryand.) Neither Mr. Jefferson orthe Senate an
pear to then thought tlAt this was an intere-
: renee III any matter beyond ;he1r power How soon
afterwards 1t has been discovered be 80, canno,
Bay IL may, perhaps, DC Inferred treaty
was considered more Ill the nature vi prlyu;e CON.
tract Imam political treaty sense ut the Con
st'tution and the Conclusion to which the Senate
came may adnnt Vi mat explanation. But l think
that the proceedings followed close upon The Geor
gia resolutions to aunofize us to grave
precedent III ITS bearlus question OF State SO
yerGignty.
dhe Committee nave rcietIed us to expression
found in oh oi,inion Delivered Inc Supreme Court
Of New York, By Chei Justice, Ia when tney
canie to the oonctIsio:, mat Indians were to De
considered as ctzeHs u the State anu capabe OF
King ny deSceHr iney i.ve COPIED their report
al extract 0i nait words, III wncn the Ch,ci
susie SAID, t'.tt lie Re" oi nc nall way doctrne
on this SUBJECT" Il @ouiuoe quite enough Tor New
forA 90 say ~ aiiswe! 90 his Gus that opinion
was aiterwad us reversed Court OF Errors with
great undsannty, aiu THIS very poll then uiy cx
auiined by tue Chancellor. Bu. IL you'd have peen
more tar 10 have tuasnea Us wlLn somew nat
larger extract from The OPINION uf Tie CeI Justice
Ine context wouu nave sIswp US more Clearly .he
views WHICH lea the court tne To wIcn
they Game lie says mat the Court do not mean
to say that tie cndltlon the Indian rloes at for
Her and remote porous, as been mat vi SUBJECTS or
cltiZehs ol tue State. tntir coudltion mas peen
gradually Changing, unii they nave ,osl every at
tribute oi sovereignty, aud become enl ely dep, n
Gent upon, anu SUBJECT 10 oui government / know
OF no halfway doctrIue tuis suUlec,. Now ar
link That me rail- airport rather az a,st
Inc position taken ny ne committee. we au admit
thoL ehere 10 no malt way doc. pom. tiy
eFy cnhQiu man VIII auil 100, tina. ,rioe OF indians
Witnln any VI tue SsaLes, may iaI uwlnuie away
OF abandon Their rSn sei-Soverumeut, anu 81 10
ussoIVe their orgiaI insL uLtouS, Ln,y NAV ne
considered, Oh the sounaesL principles to become
merged IN our suciety, exIiuct Tor all poltcaI
purposes as Separate Cunlmunities 1t would oe Very
easy to refer You 10 CASTS vi Llol New tn.-
land th Ghief justice salu NAL I'M, L.,. ,ao c1u
Nhca the Court, On muse pElncspcs ony, u4gat I'D
cpncldef the lnoians New YuiA /. sas nu. n
question nVoiVlnS strict prlncipes municlaai Jaw
merely The Court considered sncn was "A TACT
tuclr CONDITION. But reye md
law vi Inc State Is sc Ltiea day 10 Court OIL
Efrors lett IL Tne Cmei Justice, however, no
"here Denied Tie o,igiiia na'e rlsnt lnuians
70 SOVEREIGNTY HAT vas expressly exclaimed. de
asserted 40 rgnts vi c.uluest over them or tneu
iahas- lie sad nothing Disregard lndl
tueensions 10 tneir ianas, or hat any Lne col
ONES OK States had ever naInaIaea that they nad
no rights Of sovereignty or soil. hero Is DotuInu
VI ihls or any tniDS that ID TIE opn-
lou OF The court. each doctrines tnesp wOu. d
nave statued the moral vi the Stale, and con-
raolctea hoG Whole nistoIY And now Tar, Slf, al
Lex Oil, could The coIunlttee nave bus onin-
Ion ITO Their service, been oyerruied.-
Al reerfea only 10 the condition Ut the Indians n
New York. II neither speaks treats OIL any
others, nor does profess To suggest any principles
winch reach the cuse before here. u pon these II
Is 81 ent. IL Is vesy OBVIOUS hoy he Court were led
to tue conclusion to WHICH they came. No Que Gun
read this opinion ana fai to that they relied Chief
ly on the effect OF tine act OF Aprf IL, la2k- The
history OF this Is Vel Known To every LAWYER in
that State. SoonongLze, Seneca lpdlan had been
indicted for Killing Iudian woman within the Sen
eca lands She mad been put to death unaer The au-
thority ofthe Seneca Chiefs and Sachems He plead
ed to the jurisdiction of the State tribunal and the
question came before the Supreme Court for their
opinion, in a2l. 1t was fully discussed by the At
torney General, and the Counsel for Soonono,ze
(Mr. Oakley and the learning, research, and ability
displayed IN that argument will be long remembered
at the bar, and IN the courts OF New York recoI.
lect well the general impression at the bar at that
time on the point. The Court held the case under
Amusement until the next wIner They found no
principles on which they could safely affirm in JUDI
clai opinion, the jurisdiction of the State Court
They reported the to the Governor, and recon-
Inended that the question should be submitted to the
Legislature. The act of 1922 was passed. There
was, however, no Indian land 10 acquire. No code
OF Indian crimes was enacted were Indians dis
qualified to testify any case The object and spr-
1t OF IT IS very manifest In the recital which precedes
II. IL states that the Senecas bad exercised the