Litchfield enquirer. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1829-current, 1830-07-22

and the possession being thus in the crown
K it permitted the Indians in all of them, to b.
governed or otherwise disposed ofby the co.
lOniaI authorities, without any interference On
its part, until within short period before
the revolution. And in all the acts, first oil
colonies, and afterwards by the states, the
fundamental principle that the Indians had
no rights, by virtue of their ancient posses
sion. either of soil or sovereignty, has never
been abandoned, either expressly, or by i'm
plication.
! The principle was adopted (p. 81 that the
! Indians had no permanent interest in their
hunting grounds; their right TO hold their
reserved lands can be supported on no other
ground, than the grant or permission Of the
sovereignty or state in which such lands lie.
This was in the crown before the revolution,
and in the states after that event, succeeding
as they did, to the sovereignty over all the
lands within the limits of their respective
4 charters. The Indian boundaries were con-
/ sidered temporary. The treaties made with
them, were but mode Of government ant: "A
substitute for ordinary legislation, which were
from time to time dispensed with. "a. 49,
Territory and jurisdiction. considered in re-
ference to a state or nation, are inseparable /;
the one is necessary incident to the other,
and as a state cannot exist without territory,
the limits of that territory are, at the same
time, the limits Of its jurisdiction. The poll
cy of Georgia. Up. 1877 has always been. to
contract the Indian reservations, gradually,
within such reasonable limits, that no part of
the country should remain uncul!ivated. Her
policy in this respect wasa part of her rights;
any thing which tends to defeat its operation,
is deprivation of right. 1t is understood
that neither Georgia nor any other state, will
attempt to appropriate the lands within the
Indian reservations without their consent.
Can it be doubted, after these quotations,
that the report denies to the Indians, the
right both of sovereignty and soil? 1t would
seem not: and supposng this to he its mean
ing, and as expressive of the opinions of the
committee, which we are called upon to a
dept or reject, ] proceed to an examination
of the nature and extent Of the Indian title
to the lands within their boundaries.
lnmy Judgment, neither of the positions
assumed by the committee in their report is
tenahle. Ithipk it capable of Demonstration
that the right of the Indian tribes to the lands
which they occupy, is paramount to and ex.
i elusive of all others, whether nation, states
or individuals it is right torOccupy enjoy
possess, and use, according to their own dis
creation, indefinitely and for ever: and for
all practical purposes, is absolute. The only
restriction. is that of alienation at pleasure.
This power of alienation, is not, and cannot
be claimed by these tribes: for the right of
discovery, in the first instance, and the volun-
tory -or>fses &C tn ~t";i,As- affnrlra rris gave
to the government Of the United States, the
ultimate title, charged with the Indian right
of possession, or occupancy, and the exciu-
siye power of acquiring that right. In other
words, the Indians have the sole right of oc-
cupancy. To that, they have just and legal
right, and it includes the use, in such manner
as they please, and is indefinite in duration.
and of which they cannot be dispossessed,
except by cession or conquest. The govern
menf have the exclusive right of purchase,
and the ultimate right, whenever the possess
ion becomes vacant, by voluntary dereliction,
or by the extinction of the tribes.
| think also. il can be shown, that these
tribes, are separate, distinct communities,
wholly independent of the States not sub
ject to their legislation, and possessing the
right Of lfgovernment--the right to be gov
erned by their own laws, customs. and usag-
cs; and under no restraints, except such as
they have imposed upon themselves, in their
treaties with the United States.
The foundation of their title is occupancy
They have been in possession, claiming the
rights to the soil. from our FIRST knowledge o
them. They were found here. when Thu
, country was discovered. They, and they on
ly have possessed it, and this occupancy ha
, been from time immemorial. Writers on ju
, rsprudence agree in the proposition "tha
the original right to all kinds Of property a
: rose from pre-occupancy, and that in stat
Of nature. every one might possess himself o
and retain any vacant subject The first &C
cupant had a right to grant, cede, or transfer
: the subject he had possessed himself of, t.
J, such persons, and upon such terms, as h
t thought proper: and if before such grant
: cession, or transfer, the occupant died, hi
n property descended to his children. The RICH
e oftransmitting property always resided in tn
n owner, and civil institutions only prescrib'
D the mode of carrying that right into effect
s In that period of society. when countries were
I formed and their boundaries fixed, we int
E that different districts were appropriated t.
r the native owners, the first occupants, or il
: case of vacant or derelict lands, to the frs
: discoveries"
r What rights over the lands inhabited ant
y possessed by the Indian tribes. did the gov
eminent making the first discovery of then
r acquire Were they such as to annihilat
the previous existing title fthe aborigines 4
r them ? Not at all. The discovery confer
{ red the right of making settlements, of form
E / ing establishments, whenever the prior RICH
of occupancy was larcfulLy extinguished con
nected with the right of pre-emption, and thu
ultimate right in fee. whenever the lndiar
] tribes should become extinct. The power t.
r.