The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1830-05-13
Vol. %.
Intervention Of treaties?

But If we must prove, what has never
| before been denied--whst has always been
admit,ed--admiited in theory, and In praa.
tice admitted--namely, that the Indian ma.
tions within our territorial boundaries ara
competent TO make treaties--how ia that
competency TO be made out?
agree that an Indian nation, To be com.
petent 10 make treaty, must be sover.
eighty: for that tIcatics, property so called,
can only be made by soverelgns with Sow
ereigns; but Tor this purpose II is not ma
terial whether The sovereignty be depen.
dent or indepe ndent; sovereignty Is allthat
is necessary TO this competency. The hon.
orablo gentleman from Alabama. lMr.
M'kinley) said the sovoroigns must be- o.
| qual; but he will find no suhorlty for that
opinion, II, by equal he meant any thing
more than that both must be sovereign.
A dependent sovereignty is still sover,
| eighty, and competent 10 make a treaty.
| understood this TO be admitted by lhs
honorable gentleman from Georgia, IN tho
outset of his argument; though could NOT
reconcile the Subsequent part Of his argu.
ment with this admission,
Now what is sovereignty? 1t is to DO
sui juris; that is, to be subject, within 1t.
4 >tU, 10 Np liN uut tue Jaw VI Is WI Unh~
ng; externally il may be subject to onoh.
| or Jurisdiction, and then II is dependent
sovereign,y-to what degree dependent,
/ Will depend upon the treaty or treaties by
which it is made dependent, il SO made by
reaty. Now this is the condition of every
| Indian nation ln our country SUI jurfs, and
therefore sovereign; but subject externally
| to another jurisdiction, and therefore 4
dependent sovereign. This has always
been their condition since they ceased ta
| be independent soverelgnties. Since they
ceased to be independent soycrcigntIes,
| there never has been time when this Was
not their condition. When, or where, |
would ask, has any Indian nation been sub.
iect within itself, 10 the law of another ju.
risdiclion; know Of none; have heard
of none. lfthere be one, that would be 81
exception from The rest. but would not at.
| feet the right of the rest; iha, one may
| have relinqllishcd It's right to be sii jurisj
and then IL would not be regarded a. an
exception.
Now the fact OF being sal .ju'is and al
ways Of having been So, constitutes The
! righ, to be- so. | would be glad TO know
! il any nation has. or ever had. better ti!a
so and Of always having been ST.? than
present possession, fortified by prcserip'
ton that knows no beginning; that iuna
back as far ss memory ~ tradition gocs,
aud beyond to where IT IL lost IN that OBJ.
liyion IN which unknown times and their
memorials are all buried and lost. And
such is the tlllo OF every Indian nu,Ion now
IN fact sm juriS 10 be, and remain suiJnris.
There never Was, there never can be-, any
better tile so the night Of being stn jnris.
To the validity of such a'tlile, liz acknowl.
cdgment Wy other soveregntles " not ne.
cessary; but II IT were, there never has
been time IN which 1t was not nCknowl-
edged by other sovcrclgn,Ics, or was de-
, med bv any other; but 1t is not necessary,
for right IN present possesslon, fortified
and sancllfcd 10y such prescription az
this is, stands on higher ground, much
hlg her, than any acknowledgement by orh'
er soyoreirniies could place It. Unques-
,lonabIy then these nations are Sm JuJis,
or Of right sui jHiS, therefore sovereign,
therefore competent 10 make treaties.
A multitude Of matters have been urged
upon our consideration on the other side,
not TO disprove the fact Of the Indian na.
tions belng OF this moment sm JuriS nor Tho
fact that they always have been SUI juriS;
Tor these can neither be dlsproycd not do.
med: bot to prove that though they are SUI
iulis de Jocio that they are not Su1 jrris dc
! Jure; not being aware, as II appears TO me,
lhnt the fact constitutes The right.
1t is said for instance, thut The crown OF
Great Britain claimed right 10 tins coun-
try by the right of discovery; ,hnt what wns
The rlpht Of lhr crown, ls now our rIgbI,
and therefore that the Indian nations 30
not SUI juis de jure.
Now " hat as the right os claimcd by
discoyery2 q make no question Of That
rQht, lor the time has gone by for making
that question, except as moTalist or hls-
toran. Whatever WINS the defect Of that
: rlpht originally, time now has supplied thot
+ defect, a. far o. defect Oftight can be sup.
D piled by lapse Of iime.) Bot what was ihat
r,yhl os claimed by discovery? TWAS ,hls:
n ripht 10 tho domuln OF the country, sub
i ect to the right of occupancy by the Indian
i. ma, on,; and that occupancy 10 be without
p reslnction os tctmode. and wlthou, ln'ita-
d ton ~ TO time; with The right OF alienation
of their posscssory title. restricted TO the
. proprietor Of the domain.
This wss the claim Of the British crown
n AZ founded on discovery: it was 30 defined
h and settled in The case referred to by tho
y honorable gentleman from Alabama. (Mr.
: MKlnley.J The case Of Johnson and Min.
e ,osb. Ii was so settled by the court, in
I that case, because it had been so settled
!: by what had became the customary law Of
n nations. But did the King Of Great Brit.
U ain claim (for tha, is the III portont ques.
. ton did he claim these Indian nations ss
q his subjects, over whom, or for whom. ho
;, had figh, to legi-lste, for their internal
regulation No, never, never was cIalia
n ofihat kind advanced never heard of;Dev.