Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1830-04-23
CONGRESS.

GU reSOluu0n prOVluinS iof tne allowance OF
postage on the Marshal's returns under the late
Census law, as follows:
RESOLVED byfh Senate and House of Repressn-
tatiues of the United States of .amer,ca, in Con-
gress assembled, That so much of the 18th
section of the act of the Sd of March, 1925,
as restricts the weight of packages by mail shall
notsapply to the transmission of letters relating
to the fifth census, or enumeration of the inhabt-
ants of the United States.
The President having decided that this resolu
ton was equivalent to a bill, or joint resolu-
ton, it was, on motion of Mr.. RoUan. read the
first and second times, by unanimous consent,
and ordered to be engrossed for third reading
Mr.. Barton's resolution. requesting of the Pre-
sident the reasons for the removal of Land Off
Ger in Missouri, was, after some discusson,-in
which MIR. Barton supported, and Messrs. Kane,
Mckinley, Bib, and Gr,uady, opposed its adop-
tion,-laid on the table, on motion of Mr.. Gr,to-
dy. The following bills were PASSED: The bill
to authorize the payment of the claims of the
State of Massachusetts, for the services of her
militia during the late war; the bill for the relief
of Thomas Virgins; the bill for the relief of the
President. Directors. and Company, of the Bank
of Chilicothe: and the bill to refund the moiety Of
the forfeiture upon the schooner Yolante and car
90. Mr.. Robbins, of Rhode Island, replied to
the arguments of Mr.. Mckinley on the Indian
bill, as well as those of the other gentlemen who
advocated the rights of the State Governments to
extend the Jurisdiction of their laws over the IN
habitants within their own limits Mr.. Robbins
argued that an Indian nation, to be competent to
make treaty, must be sovereign, yet cOntended
that the sovereignty need not be independent;
that a dependent sovereignty was competent to
make treaty; and that the Indian nations with
in our country were all dependent sovereigntes.
Mr.. R. admitted, also, that the sovereignty Of the
Indian nations embraced all the powers of self
government. of regulating their own conduct and
all their affairs, sa j,ris which is certainly ne
cessary to all nations claiming the power of form.
ing TREATIES. The dilemma, therefore, into
which Mr.. McKinley's arguments reduced the
advocates of Indian sovereignty, appears still un-
affected, because, if these Indian nations have the
power of governing themselves sui .juris. they
have right to frame whatever form of govern
ment they may choose to live under, and conse-
quently may establish monarchy within the Ii
mits of sovereign State. When Mr.. r. had
concluded, Mr.. Forsyth replied to the arguments
of Messrs. Sprague, Robbins, and F+e!mghuy-
sen. He showed, by documents drawn from the
archives of the Government Of Massachusetts,,
that, instead of considering the Indians as sove-
reign, that ancient colony recognized them, when
unfriendly to the whites, only as rebels, and Of
fered large sums for their apprehension and pun
ishment. Mr.. f. read an act of the Colony of
Massachusetts, proposing premium of five shil-
lings on every hound raised in the State, for the
purpose of running Gown the Indians within her
borders. He illustrated the arguments of gen.
tlemen, who had proved that the contracts be-
tween the different Governments which had come
in collision with the Indian nations, were rREA-
TIES, in the proper sense of the term, by compar
ing it to species of wine imported into this
country from France. Because it was called
champagne by the vender. the vendee, and the
drinker, therefore it was verify champagne; and
the falacy could only be unveiled by reference
to the books of the Custom House. MIR. F. as
commentary on the argument of Mr.. Sprague,-
who contended that the Indian lands could only
be obtained through the medium of the great trea-
ty-making power which remains exclusively with
the General Government,-read resolution
adopted by the Legislature Of Maine, in Februa-
nv, 1929, authorizing the Governor of that State
dams for two townships of land; also, resolu-
ton of the Legislature of the same State, passed
last March, authorizing the same Indians to sell
same State of Maine. ,.sMr. Sprague replied. that
the United States having made no treaty with the
Penobscot Indians, the State of Name. in nego-
tating with them, had violated no treaty. But
Mr.. F. carried him back to the original PROPOSE
ton of Mr.. s. and those advocated that side of
the question; that the Indian nations were sover-
eign; that their lands could only be acquired by
treaty; and that the treaty making power having
been yielded up by the States to the General
Government, the State Governments had no pow
er to treat, bargain or negotiate, or extend their
laws over the Indians within their respective
limits: This was the doctrine contended for by
all who opposed the bill; yet in the very face of
all the arguments the gentleman had adduced
in support of this doctrine. tappears that no later
than Feb. 1929, and March 1880, that the lesis-
lature of the State of Maine herself has passed
one resolution authorizing the Governor to ne
ootiate with the Penobscot Indians, for two town.
Ships of land, and another resolution authorizing
the same Indians to sell it to them. Thus open
Nv violating the constitution of the United States,
if the treaty making power granted to the Gen.
eral Government be the source whence emanates
Al t