The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1830-05-13

the land titles Of his own subjects? Never. |
If discovery then is a good authority for |
what il claims, il is good for what it dis |
claims; it dsclaims the right of Jurisdiction |
over and for the Indian nations. 1t there
fore ailirms and confirms this right in them,
aud guarantees il 10 them. Is it possible
that the honorable gentleman from Mssis-
sippl can suppose that the case ofGrenada
is a case in point? That was the case OF
n conquest, and the conquest ceded by
the treaty Of peace TO the conqueror, to be
holden as part Of his dominions, and the
people AS part Of his subjects; and both
have been SO holden ever since.
1t is said again, that State has right
TO exercise Jurisdiction over persons with
in its territorial limits. and Of course over
the Indian nation within its limits; and
therefore, that such Indian nation can have
no right to exemption from that lurisdiclio
lfthis State right was admitted, it would
not disprove the Indian right; it would only
prove that the two rights were incompati
BILE, and that if the State right is exerted
and executed against the Indian right, that
the Indian right must be annihilated That
the Indian nation is placed within the lin
its Of another jurisdiction, proves nothing
~ dlHol lIlC iuuldH iOI iIlul IDusl uC
the situation Of every Indian nation within
our territorial limits. II is so, and was TO
be so, by the very claim originally made TO
the country, on which it was originally set
tied, and by which it is now held. This
country was in the possession Of these In.
dian nations; the British claim to il as foun.
ded in discovery, was Il claim to the domain
Of their country, subject to their right Of
occupancy. They ofcouisc must be stu
ated in that domain. That domain was
pgrcelled ont into colonies, now become
States; the Indian nations Of course must
fall within the limits Of those States. So
that by our very claim to their country,
They were TO be and to remain within orr
jurisdiction, and exempt from that jurisdic-
ton. and subject only to their own.
To strengthen this State claim against
the Indian right it is said that the State
wiihinils territorial limits has all the rights
which the crown Of Great Britain had with
in The same limits. But, AS has been stated,
the crown of Great Britain made no such
claim against the Indian right. Happy
will it be for these nations, if the claim Of
that crown is adopted by the States as the
measure oftheir claim, and if they will con.
tent themselves Herewith.
Still it is said that a sovereign lndepen.
dent State has right to jurisdiction over
all its own population; and that these States
were sovereign and Independent when they
adopted this constitution; and that they did
not surrender this attribute OF sovereignty
by that adoption. Admitting all this, it is
still TO be proved that an Indian nation
within State is part Of the population OF
that State. How can this be seriously
pretended? The population Of a State, is
the population which constitutes the com
munity which constitutes the State, which
is protected by the laws mud amenabe to
the laws of the State as that community.
But an Indian nation within State is not
part of that community; is not protected
by She laws and amenable to the laws OF
the State as u part ofthat community.
The population of the United States is
taken periodically, by regular census; il is
now about TO be taken for the fourth time;
were the Indian nations within the u.
States ever included in any census, as a
part Of the population ofthc United States:
Never, as every one knows. And why
not, fall persons within the limits Off soy
ercign jurisdiction are necessarily the sub
jects OF the jurisdiction, rs part OF the pop
ulatlon nnder that lhtlSdlcUoh:
The States pay direct taSos to the Unt
ed States, in proportion to their numbers
that is, 10 their population. But are the
Indian nations within the States included
in that population; Never--they are eX
pressly excluded by the constitution of the
Untad States. Then, the States them
selves by adopting the constitution, have
defined what constitutes their own popula
ton; and have excluded from il these In
dian nations.
Still it is insisted. and as branch orthe
same argument that the constitution gives
the Executive no authority TO 60 within n
State and make Treaty with part of its
population. This is true; but an Indian
nation within State, as we have Just seen,
is not part of its population The power
to make Treaties, rs given by the consu-
tuition, is a general power aud may be eX
erciscd nj the Executive discretion, with
any nation or people competent 10 make a
treaty; and it is not material where that
nation is situated or pac ed; if compctentto to
make a treaty, our Executive is competent
to make ii with them.
Again, it has been said that in several
States in which is situated some tribe or
remnant OF some tribe Of Indians, that these
States have subjected those Indians to
State Legislation Without stopping to in
ouire how that fact is, and if a fact, wheih
er it has been with the will or against the
will of these Indians; 1t is enough to say,
that If those States have undertaken that
legislation over those Indians, against their
will: and while they were n tribe and sui
;rris: and when up TO that time, they had
always been sm juris; 'hat fact instead OF
proving a right in that legislation, proves
a wrong by that Legislature; aud ips'ead
of disproying the Indian right, It proves a
.i- I let n a