Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1831-04-04
L CIV. d. TUG.
From he kahonai fniedigencer, Mareh %
THE CHEROKEE CASE

THE CHEROKEE CASE.
The statement OF the National Gazette. that
ia the lae decision OF tue Supreme Cou,i OF
| the motion Oh bfhalf Uf III. Cherokee Nation
| the Court merely declared thai IL has not tht
power TO interfere IN The manner required, II
entirely correct A different impresslon, how
ever, seems 10 have bren received by some
and the notion generally entertained Of the Ell
feet of thai decision appears 70 ns to be moi
very dehnfc. I'M, is not at all surprising 10
those who have not beidre them the opinion
Of the CnaIi, which discoses the whole merit
Of The legal question. ~ i, may he some tine
before thai opinion is published. perhaps our
r'sdcis may not be dspleasc'i wph such =
view oil the astlon, as by light reflected by
ths OPINION OF The CouIl, has presented ilseli
10 US. We do DUr pretend, Of course, 20 give
the reasoning of the Court but to disclose the
! leading conscientious uhl,h produced convic-
ten Ia our mind of the correctness OF lhe con.
olUsion 10 which II arrived.
Ens' ihen w6 must look at ths case, as il
came before he court, aIhenl regard 10 MOI.
+ al o, rhllanihropie or equitable considerations
/ connected with IL. We are not even TO ell
| qnre, in considering the late decision ot the
! Cout, VII, tho, the Indian, have brrn gionged
! Ivy the leg ,Ialinn oil Georgia, Of by the arqu
I .scence OF the General Government IN that
! leg Isstlon. OF eourse, then, we ATE moi To en-
qure whethc, the all Fed wrong. Of the
Cherokees require redress. There Is a pelim.
,uorg que. tou which requires 10 be seflled---
The question ol tue right OF the Supreme Court
TO eIeroi," original JurlSdlctlOn III the caac. II
II has not tha, right. hen no case was present
ed Tor II TO act upon. aud il could nol grant the
injunction prd, cd Tor.
The ID secllon of The 81 a-titlr Of the Con-
I All I'M A pr lnras IJF Iy3i,iuI
shut eIttud." among olher cases enumerated
u 10 c0IitroucrJies btiUttn Stale, or III. ctz rs
thereof. md foreign Sidles, their cluEens,nr sub
jsct,.' The same section gors on to declare that
IN nitcnses ia tftich stain shall be dpnriy, The
SHprtmt court shall hare ORIGINAL JURisptc-
HIN II The Cherokee Nation, therefore, be
foreign State in the sense OF the Cnnstuii0n
then The Supreme o m has original jurisdiction
OF such n case rs that presented by ,ne Cheru-
KEGS, - was cont ndcd Ivy their bil and BY the
arguments Of Iheir Counsel briore the Supreme
Court. II lh. Cherokee Nation be not for
eign power in the meaning OF the Constitution,
then the Court has uol jmisdic.iu ION OF the case
sought to be made b'tore II. The C"nu deci.
ded that the Indian Nations ~nnm tho limit,
of the United States aye Tot " foteign States -
| aud therefore refused ~ efaut the wrii of III.
junction.
the terms VI the Constitution, from tue course
OF our legislation, lfom the nature of our tren.
ties aud Intercourse With tue Indians and lto.
the laws aud usages ol nations.
The first OF these illustrations, without gong
furhe', appears TO Us TO be conclusive. In
what language, Tor example, does the Const-
tuition of the United States (the paramount
rule Tor the government Of the Conrt,) ~. k
oil the Indian nations or tribes, when !, peaks
OF them at Ill Let US exnmlne ,ha, pa....
]. Representatives, and direct taxes shall
he Rpporuoned among the several States
which may DO included within this onion
according 10 tner respective numbers
| " which shall he determined by adding 10 the
" whole number OF fee persons INCLUDING
those bound TO service Tor q term OF wears,
" aud excluding Indians not taxed, three
" iiths OF all other persons. '--C Constitution
Z. 5 DIT. !, sec. ..
In The determination Of the numbers of the
respective States" of the Unlou, our parti,.
ular class Of persons Is expressly included and
| another expressly excluded. II nothing had
been specially said Of eth r OF ia ,se classes.
II mig ht have been doubted whether the 10.
| dians we're INDEPENDENT OF the sovereignty of
| the Union " not. But these are two classes
| respecting Which it is questioned whether
Their numbers be entitled TO representation or
Nv A'eo'' oe'ue "ee persons, were sub
Jeo' 10 enun'e'Alo" ou' " was doubted ~he-
| 'e''ne hoen'ed WINE servants, OF whom
'oc'e were 'nen cohsrneraoie number IN the
se'efa o'a'e'' could De considered fee per
sous an" 'hey "efe therefore specially m-
c,un'u lot me same rehsoh' 'hat Is, because
OF tue doubts arising IRON the anomaly OF
their relation TO the seveIa States, III II Indians
= not taxed we've specially introduced, in
order 10 exclude them from the enumeration
~ "mSh u Is obvious 'hey would, IN the opm-
ION OF ,he manners oil the Cons Ituioi, hive