Litchfield enquirer., 1830-07-22

pwpprs7gfRny portion afttePoil. wqEaw holly.
disIegrIfth, Ly the NFpvn Of Ed hnd.'i
" That here there NAAs seeerKatinn OF ahy
paFt of III soil to the hAaises, tas5 erS,seft7
to be disposed Of as the prOprietors Thought
Mat tive
cOlOny.y,yasY merely ITO appear ~ do. moth
ihe whickrohcerne6 the Indians, either in the
aepropriaf;sn of their hunting grounds. or
controlling Their conduct without Their cod
sent Tint this was the general principle of
action, and that in all The acts FIRST OF the col
6nies, and afterwards by the states, the fun
darnental principle that tile indians had no
rights by virtue of their anclent possession,
either Of soil or sovereignty, has never been
abandoned, either expressly 0rby implication"
:" That the Indian boundaries. Defined ny
treaties; were merely temporary; that the
practice Of buying Indian titles, IS but the
substitute which humanity and expediency
have imposed, in place of the sword, 10 arri-
wing at the actual enjoyment Of property,
claimed by the right of discovery. and sane
toned by the natural superiority allowed to
the claims Of civilized communities over
those Of savage tribes - '"That the principle
was adopted, that they had no permanent in
terest in their hunting grounds" " that
les were hut mode of government, and
substitute f,,r ordinary legislation, which were
from time to time dispensed with; )" that
the tribes were INDUCED in the partial en-
sjoymeDt Of flieir ;neiene usages )" that the
essential point IN the policy Of Georgia, was,
that the Indian reservations should tie gradu-
ally contracted within such reasonable limits,
that no part Of the country should continue
uncultiyatod: that her policy, in this respect,
was part Of her rights, and that any thing
which tended to defeat its OperatlOD, was "A
deprivation Of right / will pursue these
quotations no further. They are negat'vedb ny
history by authenticated records, by universal
usage, by Legislative acts, and ny judicial
determinations.
Having thus disposed the question, what 10 the
aud extent of.he Indiaa tile to the lands which
they occupy, and having shown, hope, that u 's one
which for ali practical purposes is absolute aud limit
ed only by the right Of thegeMera government OF ex-
elusive purchase, and Of The revera,onary interest i"
ee proceed to inquire into and answer the question,
have The siates 10 which these tribes reside, the pow
err to extend their legislative enactments over them
and thusto abolish among these tribes the power OF
self government, md the laws, usages and CUSTOMS
by which their affairs, troln time immemorlal. have
been regulated? II do not very much mistake, M
examination Of this subject, will result in an entire
conviction, that no such power has ever existed or
does exist. 70 -',-> T., - =: =. q.
The advocates of this power, insist upon the right
claimed and possessed by the crown 10 exercise II,
while xhe United States were col ones; that blythe
declaration of Independence and the treaty Of pece
this power this right Of sovereignty and legislator,
was transferred 70 the etates soyereg1
ent conmuuiiies that it has never been surrendered
by the states the federal government, but - ratihr
guaranteed and sccusea them, by the consstnuen
| under which that governments founded. 80. ~.
fake the liberty TO say, that IN my 0pInlon Dut one
OF these propositions can he sustained ana even 'nat
is by means free from doubt. 4 refer to that which
assumes that thergbs of sovereignty aud egsIaon'
whatever they Were) became Uested IN the Sd!eS az
diriduaily upon their becoming independent OF the
crown. To say the least il might be commended with
some plausbhty, that ahese rights became vested ~
the c0nysdefoted gion first and afterwards in the
government formed under the constitution, rather
than in the individual states Hence The cautious re-
mark Of Chief Justice Marshall, "a Wheaton, o8o, J
Il has never been doubted that either a'e omneo
Ssatesor the several hada cear title % all the
w. only to the Inian right OF occupancy, and
that the ex. cave power to extihgush tina, right, was
vested in that .pIiRent, aohich ma GIT constst"f'0t-
~ erert ~ HencI the conflicting claim Of the Uni,
ted States and The ndl,iaal states to mnnppropated
lands which were finally % aS p nronss m 10
giata or discuss hatpoint. My htte'u0n WIZ oe Ut
rected to the other propositions necessary pe s"s
ained by the advocates OF the rights OF the staes 80,
1.-THE crown had lawful right to exercise Jnr'sdic
ton over the Indian tribes, without their consent, u
must have been derived either from discovery or con-
quest. ua...t t'. 'te."~ =. .'-,7,,
As to the latter, the right by conques) i, is very OBJ
yious that il has application to these tribes There
are two reasons, which would seem 10 be conclusive
on the subject One il, that no conquest was ever
mQ0G Of tOen; Oul " there ever was u clKul
quest i is very clear that surrendered by the
crown, in the treaties which were made with them
In these copacls, the Indians were regarded IA pos.
sessing the power to make them; they werc.tTeated
as lawful and necessary parties to them; Their CLAIM
to territory was acknowledged; boundaries were set
settled, and pledges given that no interruption,
no Interference, with their respective territorial
limitss settled by these treaties, should ibe al
lowed. To assert unlimited right Of sovereignty
and legslaon in the crown, by the force OF conquest
utterly inconsistent with the admitted necessity that
fhe Indian tribes should conclude treaties with the
CROWN with the circumstances under which they
were made, and with their explicit provisions: hence
the Supreme Court say, after speaking Of the wars
between Tie whites and the Indians, that The law
which regulates and ought to regulate IN general the
relations between the conqueror and conquered, WAS
nappicable 10 these Indian tribes. The resort to
some and different rule, better adapted to the
tial state Of things was unavoidable. The one a.
d0pted WIS., the Indians receded, the lands which
they thus left uRocc0pied were parce lied out and
granted by the crown and 70 those Of which they
retained possession, the Indians residing on them
were to he considered az occupants to be protected
while in peace, but 10 he deemed incapable OF trans
terring the absolute title 10. others. =, h;.
As to the existence Of this right, as emanatng from
discovery, i is conradicted by the best writers on m
ternational law by the OPINIONS ote most distinguish
ed lawyers and statesmen Of Great Britain and this
county, and has been repudiaied by, the supreme
Court OF the Uc.ted States, ,-.,A r. -
The rights acqWired BY discovery, on the part OF
the nation making It, simply the exclusive right TO
make purchases Of abe native tribes, to make settle
mepts aud occupy in pursuance OF purchases when
made; and an ultimate right in fee. whenever the
title o. the Indians shall become extinct aud even
" confined TO the relations sabsissiHg between this
country and the RhOrieinal conmuntv al native