The Arkansas advocate., 1830-11-17

{ witt however premise, that this matter can alone be settled by the law of con. tracts. ilie Territory progresses and at last becomes entitled to all the privileges ot member of the Union, as provided for by the Constitution--sh by articles of a greement contained in the Constitut,,tion. or Tn other words of confederation, Is ad- mltted into the union---the U. States gram ] ting her certain territory which the Uni- ted States guarantees to be her own The new state then assumes all the respofisi- l hflIty, and the privileges of a member of the mon, and goes into operations how ever, afterwards upon examining the country over which she fras been giving jn- laisdlchon, she finds neW nation of peo- pie, who have been living time immemori- al oii . part of this. country assigned her and claim 1t as their owns The State then. upon an examination of the rights of these people and the nature of their claim, find ont that thls country by occupation and inheritance IS the right of these people, and that they are. possessed of 1t by all the rights which could sanction or vest a claim Tn any people, and upon farther inquiry. she finds that the United States herself, has heretofore by treaty, acknowledg- ed them as nations, and has always ex- tlngulshed their title by purchase, when ever she assumed jurisdiction over any part of their lands The United States never did assume any right oyer these people while the State was Territory
 nor did she give them to understand that they were subject to her laws mueb I less then, can the new State, derivipo it's I title from the United States, assume iuris- I dlction over them; she must obtain repara- tion 1romthe U. States, by suit or action for her breachof contract in giving her boundaries, to,part of which, the United 1 States has no claim. The U. States has Il failed in one of the most essential founda si tlons of a contract. 1t Is an implied stip
 uiation in law, thatsthere is always proper ty in the grantor. ' on might as well. be- cause you have a tract of three hundred a. #Ecres os land, lying alongside of my farm of l three hundred acres in Pennsylvania. come ! down to the Mississippi and sell to some tihrd person, six hundred acres of land. the limits of which, emhrace the three hundred acres owned by yourself and in. cluding mine. D the purchaser there. on i ilis return to the sta te of Pennsylvania. and Iupen examining his tract finds tiIat It in-l cludes my three hundred acres, to which have good title. you Wonld not say that l my tract of land was D's, merely because hie boundaries extended over mine--the law of course is. that @ mast seek repara- ton of the enc of whom he purchased.
 1 Ihat'nati9ns arc as individuals, we need but open Grotius, Pufendorf, Barton's treatise ca the law Of nations, Vatel, dSc. Hence we think the great barrier, that the States are sovereign over all the territory withinstheIr present limits is overturned, they are sovereign over all tbeiF territory as far as the confines of the Indian lands. but no farther, ,swhere .asconquest or pur- chase of the Indian lands have never been ]; mades 80 pncff for the ifesv states, we will now examine the claims of the old states, or the original framers of the gener i al government. The State most prominent m the present instance, and the one most deeply engaged in controversy with the sn5ians, IS fhc State Of Georgia sls CT claim to the Indian territory, is certainly no better founded sthan that of the new states. By what right the claims incmd- ed ln that charter were granted, the world knows. The history of Great Britain. as connected with the Indians, will show, that that government never reduced the Indians tossubj bjection, but invariably treat cd with them as independent nations. for the protection of her colonies, giving them presents for their friendship, and ac- knowiedging their liberties. Georgia fought for her independence in common with the rest of the States and obtained it., lshe acquired no title to the Indian lands by obtaining her independ ence; she may say she acquired the title ofGreat Britain, but that was no better than the title of the United Statesaat the present day.
 Great Britain marked out the extent of her colonies without any regard to the rights of the Indians, and assumed domin- Ion over country of which she had never made conquest, and at the same time treat ed withthe Indians as independent nations. If the State of Georgia had made a con- quest of the Indian country at the,time the unlted states was at war with them, after the revolution, she might now have some title to the.r lands, butsthey have ssul,se- quently been treated with and a peace de- clared. The matterthen nov rests wholly with the United States, as the State of Georgla can neither treat with nor levy war against the Indians under the consti- tutlone What right has she to extend her laws over the people of another nation1 She has no rightto any part of the country included within her present boundaries, neither can the United States give her any; but must support the title ofthe Indians
 C So my half supped sword, which frankly
 would have fed
 Upon this dainty bit, thus goes to bed" l BIRMINGHAM. I DIED--1n theevicinity of this place, on Wednesday last, Mrs. MARGARET ENNEs.
 ---------------.--.---
 EL.oa,, ILyaI.a,a hr n p...aa. C,,.......t ar d.