Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1830-05-12
SPEECH OF MR.. ROBBINS,
OF RHODE ISLAND,

In ote oeHute OJ stHe CHHeu ct"eS, u
pr;l 81, 1880, on the bill TO proride for an
exchange Of lands ,cith The Indians re-
siding in any Of the Siutes on Territories,
and for their remoral ,cest Of The Rirer
Mississippi.
Mr.. President: The whole argument
in favor of this bill turns upon the qucs-
ton, whether the Indian nations within
our territorial boundaries are competent
TO make treaties with the United States.
For il makes no difference whether the
Indian nation be within the chartered
limits of a State, or out Of those limits II
within the limits of the United States.
For if being within State renders
the Indian nation incompetent to make
a treaty, the being within the United
States makes them equally incompetent,
the reason being the same in both cases
namely, the being within the jurisdic-
ton of another power; and therefore, as
the argument is, subject TO that Jurlsdlc-
ton.
If these Indian nations are competent
to make treaties, then the proposed law
is unnec essary; as its object may be eff
fected by treaty; and this law IS not ne
cessary to aid the Executive in making
this treaty. And if these Ipdian nations
are competeot to make treaties, than this
proposed law is not only unnecessary, but
Il is unconstitutional; for it is to make a
treaty by the Legislature; which can only
be made by the executive and Senate.
The turning question, of this whole de-
date, repeat is, whether the Indian. ma
tons within our territorial boundaries are
competent to make treaties.
Before proceed to discuss this question,
Ihave to remark that it is matter OF surprise
that this question, should now be made,
when it is now made for the first time
From the time Of the discovery of this
new world by the old down to this time now
more than three hundred years, the COM
potency of an Indian nation, situated
within the jurisdiction Ofanother power,
has never been made question before:
No iurist, no writer upon public law, has
ever made it question. But, through
all that long tract of time, treaties upon
treaties, and almost without number, have
been made with them, without a doubt,
in a single instance of their competency
to make them. This is not denied on the
other side; indeed it is admitted that the
doctrine and the practice of all past time,
for century upon century, has been, to
consider these nations, thus situated, as
competent to make treaties. But oil this
is treated as if the whole world, from the
beginning down to this time, had been be-
nig hted upon this subject; as if they had
ignorantly supposed and believed that the
Indian nations, thus situated, were COM
petent to make treaties, when in truth they
were not competent to make treaties:
That Great Britain had been in this de-
plorable state of ignorance, with all her
statesmen; that our governments, both
state and national, had been in this de-
plorable state Of ignorance, with all their
statesmen; that the jurists or writer's upon
public law, of all the world, had all been
in this deplorable state of ignorance. /
say so treated; for do not perceive that
this new opinion is advanced with any
less confidence, or with any more diff
dence, on account of that mass of author
ity and usage against it. have further
to remark, that if indeed it be so, that
not, and have not been, competent to
make treaties, then all the treaties made
with them are utilities. If so, the con-
sequences of that consequence would be
enough, l should think, to make gentle
men pause little, and even fear the
success of their own argument; for the
consequences would be such that the
whole body of the rights acquired by In
dian treaties, or held under them, or de-
rived from them, would be torn from their
foundations and the resulting evils would
be intellectually great. l have said that
in that case these treaties would be null
lities, s. who can doubt it The President
& Senate have the power to make ire aties
but a treaty made with party not COM
petent to make it, is not a treaty; it is a
compact as distinguishable from treaty
and the President and Senate are not
competent to make compact which isl
not treaty; so that every such treaty is
void as treaty: because the Indian ma
ton was not competent to make it; and it
is void as a compact, because the Pres
ident and Senate are not competent toI
make it. If this be so, my honorable
friend from Tennessee need not disquiet
himself upon the subject Of his contradic-
tory obligations: for upon this doctrine,
these treaties have created no obligations
upon the United States.
Again; have to remark that if these
Indian nations, thus situated, are not
competent to make treaties, no more
treaties can be made with them; that the
treaties which have been made, and not
ratified, if any such there be, must be re-