Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1830-05-12

diction was not claimed. If the crown
claimed these Indian nations as his sub
jects, why claim pre-cmptive right to
their titlesI Did any king claim a pre-
emptive right to the land titles of his own
subjects Never. If discovery then is
good authority for what it claims, it is
good for what it disclaims it disclaims
the right of jurisdiction over and for the
Indian nations. 1t therefore affirms and
confirms this right in them, and guaran-
ties it to them. Is it possible that the
honorable gentleman from Mississippi
can suppose that the case of Grenada is
case in point That was the case of a
conquest, and the conquest ceded by the
treaty of peace to the cOnquerOr, to be
holden as a part of his dominions, and
the people as part of his subjects; and
both have been so holden ever since.
1t is said again, that State has a
right to exercise jurisdiction over per-
sons within its territorial limits, and of
course over the Indian nation within its
limits; and, there fore, that such Indian
nation can have no right to exemption
from that jurisdiction. lfthis State right
was admitted, it would not disprove the
Indian right; it would only prove that the
two rights were incompatible, and that If
the State right is exerted and executed
against the Indian right, that the Indian
right must be annihilated. That the In
dian nation is placed within the limits of
another jurisdiction, proves nothing a
gainst the Indian right, for that must be
the situation of every Indian nation with
in our territorial limits. 1t is so, and was
to be so, by the very claim originally
made to the country, on which it was
originally settled, and by which it is now
held. This country was in the possess
sion of these Indian nations; the British
claim to it as founded in discovery, was
a claim to the domain of their country
subject to their right of occupancy. They
of course must be situated in that domain.
That domain was parcelled out into colo
nies now become States; the Indian ma
tons Of course must fall within the limits
of those States. So that by our very
claim to their country, they were to be
and to remain within our jurisdiction, and
exempt from that jurisdiction, and sub
ject only to their own.
H To strengthen this State claim against
the Indian right, it is said that the State
within its territorial limits has all the
rights which the crown of Great Britain
has within the same limits. But, as has
been stated, the crown of Great Britain
made no such claim against the Indian
right. Happy will it be for these ma
tons, if the claim Of that crown is adopt
ed by the States as the measure of their
claim, and if they will content themselves
Herewith. ..
II Still it is said that a sovereign inde-
! pendent State has right to jurisdiction
over all its own population and that
these States were sovereign and indepen-
dent when they adopted this constitution;
and that they did not surrender this attri-.
butte of sovereignty by that adOption.-I
Admitting all this, it is still to be proved
that an Indian nation within State is a
part of the population of that State
How can this be seriously pretended !
The population of State, is the popula-I
ton which constitutes the community,
which constitutes the State, which is
protected by the laws and amcnable to
the laws of the State as that community
But an Indian nation within State, is
not part Of that community, is not pro-
tected by the laws, and amenable to the
laws of the State as a part of that COM
munity.
i The population of the United States
is taken periodically, by regular census;
it is now about to be taken for the fourth
time; were the Indian nations within
the U. States ever included in any CEN
sus, as part Of the population of the U.
States! Never, as every one Knows
And why not, if all persons within the
limits of a sovereign jurisdiction are ne
cessarily the subjects of the jurisdiction,
as part of the population under that
jurisdiction.
The States pay direct taxes to the
United States, in proportion to their num-
bers; that is, to their population. But
are the Indian nations within the
States included in that population
Never-they are expressly excluded by
the constitution of the United States.
Then, the States themselves, by adopt
ing the constitution have defined what
constitutes their own population and
have excluded from it these Indian ma
tions.
Still it is insisted, and as branch of
the same argument, that the constitution
gives the Executive no authority to 90
within State and make Treaty with
a part of its population. This is true
but an Indian nation within State, as
we have just seen, is not part of its
population. The power to make Trea-
ties, as given by the constitution, is a
II general nower and NAV ha exorc;soJ M