The Arkansas advocate., 1830-11-17
for fhe Athuasos .adrocate.

.hdtElT, bT0tBeTSp
 B. JONES, Clerkn For the sAfbuasas .fdcocate. TO THE PEOPLE OF THE II. STATES. The Indians and their rights are now be- coming asHbieet thatrequires general at tention. We should examine and ascer- tain If they have any rights, and if they have, as a nlagnanlmous nation, we should see that they are not deprived of them. " c
 should not receive every plausible argu- ment as undoubted that bears against them, until we have examined the opposite side
 of the question. Insthe first place, howev-
 CT, we would remark, that the humane of
 the United States think 1t would be much
 better for the Indians to. remove west of the Mississippi, because game IS much more plenty there, than where they now are, and of eeursesthey could pursue their natural inclination. Yes. this Is their ge- neral notion, out they are widely mista- ken: I thought myself, when came to the west, to feed upon the iuxuries Of the for est, but was mistaken: the country to the west of the State of Missouri, and the Ter ritory of Arkansas, IS nothing hut success slve sheets of widely extended exairie, destitute of wood and water, and 1t, to- gether with.the aforementioned State and l Territory has beenzfhesreaort Tor. the fast thirty or fortyyears Of hunting parties from every tribe of Indipna in the United States, for the purpose of obtaining fur and pel- tries, and also of hunting parties of the whites. They have literally swept the game from the woods; Ii is not so plenty here as in the Alieghany mountains; n this respect, the people of the United States are very, much mistaken. We have left the Indians to the management of. the gen. cral government and of congress, but the subject has not been thought of sufficient magnitude to engage 9 general discussion 1 m congress, and has been passed Su6 siien- tio Ill great measure, as subjects which are considered small, usually are In that body, and safely deposited on the table. That the subject has not received gen. eral discussion Tn congress, Is beyond a doubt, that Is, as regards the rights of the l lndians.) \ few speeches were made, which exhibited every argument that could be advanced in favor of State rights, and l the impossibility of their existence as na- tlons, situated as they now are; but we
 saw none that possessed stuff cient philan- 1 thropy to advocate their claims----trace l them to their foundation and establish the 1 relative situation of the United States, the l States, and the Indian rights.
 The object of this short address IS tesex- anime the nature of the Indian claim to 1 tbelriands within the several States. To understand the nature of their situation with regard to the States, will require,but few moments explanation--a few words
 of plain sense. In.the first place, we will 1 take one of theinew States, and trace 1t to its passage from Territorial to State | government---for instance Alabama or the
 State of Mississippi. During hetime they existed as Territorial Governments, they were truly under the dominion ofthe Uni ted States, except as to some privileges which 1t Is usual for the United States to 1 grant her territories, such as the right of i forming an assembly, and enacting such
 laws as may be necessary for the Ierrlto- l ry, which are again to be placed under the revision of congress, and to elect cer-
 tain officers, &c. During the existence
 of the Territorial government, the United States never exercised any act of domin- 1 ion over the Indians--the laws passed for the benefit ofithe Territories and sanction- ed by congress, never were made obiiga-
 tory on the lndians---they never extend ed farther than the extremities of the In- dian lands, for this plain reason, the u- nltcd States must and do acknowledge the
 existence of the Indians as nations; they
 have treated with them as such, and al- ways extInguish their title to lands by pur-
 chase. It lsthen 2 singular anomaly to lsee the united States, laying out terri
 tory, the boundaries of which run oyer h. I dian lands-S-lsnds to which the Indians have right by inheritance, by custom, and by occupation; and lands to which ! they. the United States, acknowledge they have no right, but as they extingnish the
 title to them by purchase. We ask then, why does the United States, in establish
 ing Territory stretch her boundaries O. lver the Indian landsa There is only this
 one mitigating circumstance in the con duct of the United States, they have hith- erto, with ease, extinguished the title of
 the Indians, while they were in possession
 Of large quantities of lands; and they now suppose in laying out territory, they may run their lines over the Indian territory
 at once, thinking they can at any time extinguish their title; but 1t appears now Icthermise. the Indians have refused. What Els tossbe dune then9 VIC arc sure. tho Unified States, would avoid any act of oppression, and 1t is not the wish of tie people of the United States, that it should he committed.