Litchfield enquirer., 1830-07-22

vcuEEntiaV EsEhslr'Ewitil IilR IpdizRR iu-thRl
"a erIS Aut middle DEF tn,4 Is, |hr 81
Pu fpses6 e seriviRg tleHl lSt6 lie $or 80
PFOteetiUn d the Omitted States nd for es-
|tablishing boundary lines Of property.
-1dMEElk@ExH8s1Nz kEa9 fEHuiXEkls TINT y
commission be opened for treating with the
CherOkees and all other Indians sOuthward1
-eEthem and in June fRe, Congress diree:-
ed the commissioners who were to hold this
treaty for the purpose 81 obtaining from them
"a ceSsion Of lands, to make such cession as
extensive and liberal as possible. y 81 ~.
In August 1885. Congress passed an Ordi
nance for the regulation Of Indians affairs,
the preamble Of which states, that the safety
and tranquility OF the frontiers Of the United
States depend, in some measure, on main-
tanning good correspondence between their
citizens and the several motiOns Of Indians
This ordinance regulates the intercourse with
In November 1875, the treaty of Hopewell
was made. Its provisions need not be referred
to. Is % e. ::.'**G IS @tFT - -
II will be seen, that all the acts Of the Con-
finental Congress, were predicatedOn the as
sumed basis, that the Indians tribes had just
and legal right to the occupancy OF their
lands, indefinitely. and that the only sabsisting
right Of the government Oathem. was what
has been heretofore stated: the exclusive
right of purchase, and the ultimate, Econtiri-
gent right in fee. 80 an" 6..'S
But the proceedings of,the government at
ter the adoption Of the constitution, il valid.
put an end to every question: regarding the
title of the Indians. In the treaty of HOlston.
made with the ChcrOkees in 1871. the sew
enth article provides, that the United States
will solennly guaranty to the Cherokees, all
their lands not thereby ceded. When this
treaty was transmitted to the Senate, it was
referred to COMMITTEES consisting Of Mr..
Hawkins Of North Carolina, Mr.. Cabot Of
Massachusetts, and Mr.. Sherman of Connect
icut, who reported, among other things, that
they had examined the treaty and found it
strictly confOrmabie to the instructions given
by the President of the United States, and
that those Instructions were founded on the
advice and consent Of the Senate, and that
the Senate advise and consent to the ratifca-
tiOn of the treaty. Various other treaties
with the same, and with other tribes, contain
a similar provision, and if these treaties have
any binding force, it. is needless to- inquire,
what were the rightsoftile Indians, before the
conclusion and ratification Of these treaties;
or what were the rights of the government.
THESE solemn compacts contain promise of
security in possession Of their lands, and give
them title, ii they had not one before
How far it was competent for the United
States, to enter into these stipulations, / shall
not, in this stage of the discussion, lnquire.-
That j shall consider. when refer to them,
as conclusive to show that the states are ex-
cIaded from making any legislative enact
nents to affect them. 49,
vi HAYES now, considered the nature and ex-
tent of the Indian.tii as recognised by the
crown sthe colonies, the staias. the Contnen-
tai Congress; and the United States, since the
! adoption Of the constitution. On tAe SUBJECT
of this title. it only remains for me to ss'oW'
as promised to d1, that the title, as thus ac-
| knowledged; has received the sanction Of the
Judicial -l.s~-s.->~..A .s tl;s --
In Fletcher Vs. Peck, E(6 Cranch, PIP. lag,
81 it is said, "1'he majority Of the court is Of
opinion that the nature of the Indian title,
which Is certainly to be respected by all
courts, until IL he legitmately extDguisiied, is
not such rs TO he absolutely repuSnant to seiz-
ing in fee on the part of the state" Here is
complete recognition ola title; it is not absO
iutelya repugnant TO the ideas that the state
may be seized in fee because the state has
the ultimate dominion; the right expectant
! upon the determination Of the state in the 10
dlans; so long as the Indians occupy, the
right OF the state is dormant it cannot be ex-
ercised. 1t is only in the event that the oc-
i
comes extinct, that the ultimate right Of the
state can. be enforced. Judge Johnson, in
the same case, (pp. l46, ~ says the Indians
have the absolute pr0prietOrship of the soil.
The uniform practice Of acknowledging their
right of soil. by purchasing from therns and
restraining all persons from encroachiDg upon
their territory, makes it unnecessary to insist
upon their right of soil, ,sa go, .~-.
But It was reserved to this court, at later
period. to give this subject greet degree Of
attention, and to investigate, ascertain, and
declare the nature ande Ofthe Indian IT,
tie. This was done in 1898; and the case Of
Johnson Us. M'lntosh, e. Wheat, furnishes as
with the result. In that case, the Chief JUS
tice, delivering the opinion Of the court, says,
+" The original inhabitants were admitted to
be the rightful occupants Of the soil, with
legal rs well as. just claim to retain posses
sion. it, and to use it. according to their own
discretion. While tho different nations. of
Europe respected the right Of the, natives as
occupants. they asserted the ultimate d0min-
ion to be in themselves, and claimed and ex-
ercised as n consequence Of this ultimate do
minion, power to grant the soil, while yet
10 lhepossessiOn ofthe natives. These grants
have been understood BY all; to convey a title |
to the grantees, subject only To, the Indian
right Ut occupancy. It has never been doubt |
ed, that either the United States. or the sey-
eral states. had clear title, to all the lands
within the boundary line desCriheA in the