Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-08-04
SPEECH OF Mr.. STORRS. OF N. Y.
\

u Massachusetts any years ago, and Is held by IN
div,duals under purchases from that Scate. s nav 80
noticed In the Executive Journal that on tho sstn OF
Eebruafy, 1897, conveyance by treaty from zoe 90
neca nrtou for part Of their lands to some OF these
individuals, made in the presence Of Co%nissloner
of the United States, lnd before the senate oy
mr. Adams. On the 9eih Of February, 1893, q reso'
lotion to ratify it nsgatived, the senate being
equally divided on the question:. On the se'h harch
the following resolution wos submitted by one OF tho
Senators from Georgia, (Mr berren:
"Resolved, That by tho refusal Of the Senate to
refy the treaty With the Ssneca Indians, II - not In
tended to express any dsspprobaton OF the terms OF
tho contract entered into by the individuals who were
parties that CONTRACTS but merely TO dsciaim any
power the subject matter
This resolution modified IN the 4th OF April,
by onittina the latter words, and inserting 30 Is 10
read dscaim the necessity OF an interference oy
The Senate with the subject matter, and passed Id
that form These proceedings struck me as some
what novel, and find that the Senate departed LII TINS
from former practice ON the same subject
under Mr.. Jchersons administration The ueahes
between the Senecas and Oliver Phelps, as we'll as
the Holland Land Company, for Periec,lns the same
pre- emptvc right. laid before the Senate oy Mi
Jefferson, anu formally ratified like other treaties
Thee but one dissenting vote MI w RICH, OF
E1sryland.) Neither Mr. Jefferson or the Senate ap-
pear have then thought that this was an interie'
Tsnce any matter beyond their power How soon
afterwards It has been discovered to be 50, cannot
say. II may, perhaps, be inferred tnat this treaty
was considered more in the nature OF private con-
tract political treaty the sense OF the Con-
st'tutlon, ana the conclusion 10 which the senate
camo may admit OF that explanation. but think
tnat the proceedings followed too close upon the Geor
gla resolutions to authorize 10 cons ser II as grave
precedent Ito bearing ON The question OF State SO
vereighty.:
Tne committee have referred as TO all expression
found OPINION delivered IN the Supreme Court
OF New York, BY the Cniei Jusce, In which they
u the ooncluslon that the Indians were to be
considered citizens of the STATE and capable OF ia
kins by descent. rhey have copied INTO their report
an extract Ut half dozen words, winch the Chief
JUST ice said, he knew OF half way doctrine
OF this 81 pect" IL would be quite enough for New
Sork 10 answer TO this that this opinion
Fas afterwards reversed 10 the Court OF Errors, with
great unanmty aud this very point was hen fully ex-
aDncd by the Chancellor. But II would have been
more fair TO have furnished here with a somewhat
larger extract from the opinion OF the Chief Justice.
The context would have shown more clearly The
views which led the court " tue conclusion u which
they came. He says hat the Court do not mean
to say that the condition OF Indian tribes,
mer and remote periods, mas been That VI subjects
citizens OF the State. Their condition has been
gradually changing, until they nave lost every at
tribute OF sovereignty, and become entirely Deepen
dent upon and subject to our government Know
oi no halfway doctrine OIL this subject. Now sir,
think that the fair import OF this rather against
the position taken by the committee. We all admit
that there Is no half way dos rIne this pon. Ev
cry candid man will admit too, tina. a OF Indians
within any of Tie s ates, may tar dsfnuie away,
or abandon their right To seii-gevcrnmcnt, aud
SifsiGered the soundcst principles, to become
merged IN our society, ana extinct Tor all political
Purposes as separate communities 1t would oe very
easy TO refer You cases OF that New Eau-
land Th Chief Justice that the time lad come
when the Court Oh those prIncrics only, ME 4 50
cpnclder the Indians in New York Il lot
question involving strict principles OF municipal law
merely. The Court considered nat IN TACT
their condition. But the case reversed, and The
law Of the Stale is settled to this day the Court of
ETfors left 1T. The Chief Justice, however, NO
where denied The original native rl,nt of the lhdans
to sovereignty That expre-ly exclaimed. He
asserted no rights of c"nsE over them or their
lands He said nothing OF disresarding Indian
pretensIons 70 their lands, or sa' any OF the cob
onIes or States had ever EasnlaInei that they had
no rights OF sovereignty or sell. There Is nothing
ct this or any thing that couRtenancos 1t IN tue opn
ion OF the Court. Such doctrines as these would
have startled the moral sense of the State and
tradicted her whole history And how far, Sir at
ter oil, could The cOmmttee have pressed his opH
ION ito their service, mad never been overruled?
It referred only to the condition of the Indians
Nev YORK. IL neither speaks nor treats oil any
othes, nor does profess to suggest any principles
which reach the case before US here. Upon these 1t
Is silent II ID very Obvious hoy be Court we're led
80 the conclusion TO which they came. No one can
read this opinion and fail u that they relied chief
~ on the effect OF the act of April is, Ioss. The
history Of this not well knowa to every lawyer IN
that stale Soonongze, a Seneca Indian, had been
indicted for killing an Indian within the Sen
eoa lands She had been put death under The au-
thofity Of the Seneca Chiefs anu sachems He plead
ed to the jurisdiction of the State tribunal, aud the
question came before the Supreme Court for their
opinion, III cal. 1t was fully discussed BY the At
torney General, and The Counsel for Soonongize
(Mr. OakeyJ and be learning, research. and ability
displayed IN that argument will be long remembered
at the bar, and ~ the courts Of New York reool
lect we'll The general impression at the bar at that
time Oh the point The Court hold the case under
advIsemenb until the next winter They found no
principles on which they could safely affirm in JUDI
oai opinion, the Jurisdiction of the Safe Court
They reported The case to the Governor, and RECON-
mendsd that tne question should be subme ed to the
Legislature. The act of 1922 passed. There
was, however, no Indian land TO acquire. No code
o. Indian crimes was enacted, nor Indians dis
qalfed to testify in any case The object and spir-
of u is very manifest III the recital winch precedes
il. II states that the Senecns had exercised the
power Of Plnlshng, even capItalIy, ind lduals of
their tribe that the sole aud exclusive cognzance of
crimes belongs to the Stale; and that TO project the
Indians tins jurisdiction ought to be asserted TO that
extent. Now, sir, what was the case before the
Legislature, and on what motives did they act? They
.LsiE LIu.L. -. I.