Litchfield enquirer., 1830-07-29
spErcH OF Mr.. HUNT1NcToN,
Ns OF CONNECTICUT,
On the Bill to prO0ide for the Removal of the
Indians acest Of the Mississippi.
fCONoLUnEn.l

II shOUld be promised, that the right to legis-
late over these tribes, il it exist is in its ma
ture indefinite and unlimited for, MS it has its
foundation in the sovereign power of the
state, that sovereign power extends TO tho e.
nactment Of all laws to affect the Indian tribes.
which could lawfully be made to operate up
on its white citizens. And this seems to be
the doctrine assumed in the Report. The
( right to lcgislate is spoken of as growing out
OF the absolute sovereignty of the states,
within their territorial limits, and can Of
course have no limitation in respect to the In
dams, which.it has not in regard to its white
population. 1t must, therefore, be admitted
that it state can legislate, so as to affect
tent, as over its own citizehs.
! This unltmated po yer OF legislation cannot
exist, without annihilating the Indian title to
| their lands. have heretofore attempted to
show what was the nature and extent of that
TILE; right to use and occupy forever not
to be defeated by legislation, but by cession
or conquest only; and that this title was not
acquired by permission, by treaty, by reser-
vatlons: hut by the original right of Occupn,,-
cy. What becomes Of the enjoyment ofthis
right, If state can lawfully do as Georgia,
Mississippi, and Alabama have done-pass
laws, abOlshing and declaring null and void
all laws, ordinances. orders. regulations, usa-
GEES. and customs of the Indian tribes within
their limits? Cannot these states alter the
mode ot descent, the regulations Of alienation,
the rights of possession, as known and practi-
sed by the Indians Cannot they impose
taxes, and subject their lands to the payment
osthem Cannot they make legislative enact.
ments, the necessary and inevitable effect Of
which will be to drive them from the occupa-
finn nf fhnir forrifnpv MA ,,.t NL.
at War foresee this consequence, when he
stated to- the Cherokee delegation, that in
consequences OF the power IF Georgia to ex-
tend her Legislative enactments over this ma
ton, the only remedy for the nation, wac a
removal beyond the Mississippi, were alone,
could be assured to it protection and peace
that while the tribes continue within the ter
ritOrial limits Of an independent state, they
could promise themselves nothing but inter-
ruption and disquietude; that beyond the
Mississippi, there would be no conflicting in
terests there the United States could say to
them, the soil shall be yours, while the trees
grow, or the streams run; hut situated where
they now are, no such language could be held
to them? What is the meaning Of all this,
hut that being subjected to the legislation Of
Georgia, the occupancy Of their territory
would be disturbed; and that the conse-
| quence Of their residing within the limits Of a
sovereign state would eventually be externn.
alton Let me read to the committee an ex-
tract from the speech of a distinguished sena-
tor from Mississippi, lately deceased, (Mr.
Reed,) which shall have occasion to use for
another purpose hereafter, in the Senate ofthc
United States, in 1896: He was entirely
persuaded that so long rs the tribes of Indians
| within any state Of the Union were exempted
from the operations of state laws, they never
would consent to remove from the territory
they occupy: until our legislation can in some
form or otherb be brought toact on these peo-
pie, or those resident among them, they will
never consent 10 abandon their lands. So
! soon as our laws can reach those abandoned
citizens. who settle among them, and become
as savage as the Indians themselves, power
ful motive for their continuance will he reno
we'd. 1t is first step in system tending to
change Of residence"
II one Of The principles advanced in the Re-
port be correct, and the Indian title to their
lands be what Thave stated II to he, 1t wholly
excludes state legislation. The committee
cay, speaking Of the law of the state Of New
| York, at was not understood as Producing
any new principle. II recognized the gener-
al principle, that territory and jurisdiction,
considered in reference TO state or nation,
are inseparable; that one is a necessary incl
dent to the other; and that as a state can
not exist without territory, the limits Of that
territory are, at the same time, the limits Of
its jurisdiction" Here the fundamental prin-
ciple is asserted, that soil and jurisdiction are
inseparable from each other. That the right
10 the soil, in state, er Vi termini, includes a
right Of sovereignty or Jurisdiction over it,
| Let an application be made ofthis doctrine to
the Indian title. 1t has been shown, that the
title 10 the territory which they occupy, as a.
gainst the state Of Georgia, is practically an
absolute title, and by the United States il has
been solemnly guaranteed to them. II SO,
then, the ATTRIBUTES Of sovereignty, said to be
necessarily incident to the right Of soil, attach
es to It; for it can hardly be claimed, that
what is correct rule as applied to the ciyili-
zed nations, ought not to be applied to the In
dian tribes. II would seem, therefore, to be
necessary consequence, from the positions
taken in the Report, that the Indians possess
the right Of sovereignty over their lands, II
they are the owners Ofihc lands; and have
endeavorcd TO show, in former part Of this
discussion, that they are the owners o. the
coil, for every practical purpose for which ab-
soluie ownership may be used.
Another objection to the right oflegislation,
by the states, is derived from its ao1,user, Or
the expression may b zlIowed,l by Georgia.
at all times. 1t is now more than City years
since the declaration Of Independence. and
more than forty sinee the adoption Of the