Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1830-01-05

oJ az VIII WHICH is no title at
all) that the discovery might determine
the tenancy at any moment, by negotia-
ton or force; and that, as all European
governments are alleged to be agreed in
these principles, " force becomes right"
The inhabitants Of North-America
might therefore have been rightfully driv-
en- into the ocean. &c at anymoment. !" when
the discoyerers,should have been WILLING
and able thus to drive them. 1t is to be
inferred. that Cortez and Pizarro were on
ly executing the lawful commands of the
King of Spain, when they were taking
possession of Mexico and Peru, which
according to this doctrine, rightfully be-
longed to him; though in doing so, were
under the unpleasant necessity Of mur-
dering the original inhabitants.
The Committee are entirely mistaken.
in point of fact, when they say, that e eve
ry foot of land in the United States is
held" by such title as has been describ-
ed that is, title in the European soye-
reign, which, on the moment Of discove-
~, supplanted and subyeFted all the rights
OF the natives to the lands, on which they
were born, and Of which they were in
full possession. 1t may be truly said, that
there is not, within the limits of the Unit
ed States, as fixed by the peace of 1898,
a single foot of land held, as against the
original inhabitants, by the title of dis
covery alone. Incomparably the largest
portion of the territory, within the above
mentioned limits, has been purchased of
the Indians. Some small portions have
been conquered; the original owners hav-
ing been nearly exterminated in war, or
driven from their lands by superiour
force, or compelled to cede them, as the
price of paci6cation. But in all these
cases, the wars had some other origin,
than an attempt to enforce the title of dis
covery. The politicians of Georgia are
requested to produce single instance, ac-
ter the settlement of the Anglo-American
Colonies commenced, of any English
Sovereign, or any Colonial GOVERNOR, or
any Colonial Legislature, or any State
Legislature, anteriour to the treaty of the
Indian Spring in 1925, having assumed
the right of taking forcible possession of
Indian country, at any moment, by virtue
of the title of discovery, and without any
regard to what the Sup. Court has called
p" the just and legal claim of the natives
to retain possession of their country. The
exclusive right Of eatinguishing the Indian
title, or what has usually been called the
right Of presumption, is totally different
thing from this all-absorbing and over
wheIming right of discovery, on which
Georgia now insists. If "a single instance
of an assumption can be produced, let it
be brought forward. Lei US contemplate
the circumstances in which it originated,
and examine its claims to respect Thous-
ands of instances can be adduced on the
other hand, of acknowledgements made
by emigrants from Europe, and by rulers
of every grade, from the highest to the
lowest acknowledgements, which admit
ted the perfect right of the Indians to
the peaceabe possession of their country,
SO long as they choose to retain it.
But if all the Governments of Europe
had, during the three last centuries, held
the doctrine now so warmly espoused by
Georgia, how utterly vain would be every
attempt to defend it, or to make it appear
otherwise than tyrannical, cruel, and
Not all the monarchs of
Europe, nor all the writer's on the laws of
all the power and all the
in the world could alter its char
acter, or convince an honest, candid, in
telligent man, that it is entitled to the
least respect. What is this doctrine, so
necessary to the present claims OF Geor-
gia 1t is neither more nor less than the
assumption. that the circumstance OF an
English vessel having sailed along the
American coast from Cape Hatteras to
the Bay of Fundy, as the case might be.
gave the English King an absolute and
perfect title, not only to the coast, but to
all the interior, and that he might therefore
empower any of his subjects to take forcl-
BILE possession Of the country, to the I'M
mediate exclusion and destruction OF the
original inhabitants.
In the history Of the slave trade, we
have perfect exhibition of the total in
efficacy of human law to sanction what is
immoral, especially after the
ewes of mankind are fixed upon it. For
more than two hundred years, the princi-
pal powers of Europe legalized the slave
trade. The judicial tribunals Of all coun-
tries sustained it by their decisions. 1t
was universally established and assented
to. But was it right !? The voice of the
world has pronounced its irrevocable sen
tence. 1t is now piracy and to have
been recently connected with it is Indell-
bic infamy. But is it more clearly wrong
to take Africans from their native land,
than it is to make slaves of the Chero-
KEGS upon their native land or, on pen
atty of their being thus enslaved, driving
AZ -, .,,o ovila