Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-04-13

mcnts themselves
We approach the material enquiry in the case
DO the treaties which have been orued with the Chero
Recs, contain sipuaons Incompatible with the exercise
Of jurisdiction by the OF Georgia over these lndan
That they establish boundaries OF possessions,
alot' TO the Indians their "huuting grounds SC;
In other words all those usuirucuary rights, necessary
TO their subsistence in their usual mode OF life far
the relative obligations OF the United States and Georgia
permitted the former establish and them will
he disputed 1t is the jurisdiction persons, and not
the disposition oil property which we are now investga
ting.
succioct review of the treaties with the Cherokees
becomes necessary; but in making it, place view
the treaty of Hopewell, negotiated in 1885.
II never established peace, in fact, it
led. |, succeeded by open hostcs which contn,i-
ed with various for years. by which
obligations were in fact impaired, if not destroyed The
treaty OF l1oson OF ISL evidently intended
substitute for the previous treaty Of iopewe: the lat
ter Is not mentioned alluded TO. 1t is clearly taken
for granted that lis puladons have ceased and such
them, as acceptable TO the parties, incorporated
into the new compact This will appear 10y comparison
Of the two treaties
Treaty Of Hope,ceU Treaty Of HoLston.
Preamble Gives peace. Art |. Establishes peace
Art j and 2. Provide for Art 8 Provides for the
the restoration of prisoners. restoration OF prisoners
Art 3. Placed under the Art Placed under the pro-
protection of the L. States. lection OF the U. States
Art I. Boundary. Art 4. Boundary; being
the same, with slight varia-
tons. IS that established by
the treaty OF HopewelI
Art g. Provision for the Art s. Provision for the
removal OF intrudcrs. removal of ntruders
Art 6. Provision for the Art 10. Provision for the
delivery of offenders residing delivery of offenders resid
among the Indians. ing among the Indians
Art Z. Provision for the Art IL Provision for the
punishment OF persons in punishment of persons
Juring the Chcrokces. ing the Cherokees
Art 8. Retaliation abo- Art ~. Retaliation abo-
lished lshed
Art. 0. Congress may Congress may regulate
fuae trade with the Chero- trade with the Cherokees
Art: 10. supplement to Omitted
the 9th Article.
Art. IL. Chcrokces to give Art Is. Cherokees TO give
notice OF designs against the notice against the United
United States. States
Art. - Allowed TO send Omitted.
Delegate 10 Congress.
Art. 10. Peace and friend Art Is. Peace and friend
ship rc-esablished ship re-establshed.
$50 Art. ). Provision for road
Art Z. Guarantee of lands
Art. l. No hunting on
Cherokee lands.
Ant II. Implements of
agriculture TO be furnished
Interpreters TO be provi-
dcd Sc
Art. 10 To he ratified
Can any doubt exist but that the treaty. hat
Hoiston) which was made "to remove causes OF war;;
which Establishes perpetual peace and friendship >;
which provides for the surrender of persons capt.
viy on both sides; which puts end 10 "all anmos-
ties for past grievances and which negotiated after
some years of continued war, treaty peace and
that all the obligations between the parties renewed
confirmed by IT, were considered as annued; Uiscy-
pressy termed "trcay of peace by Mr. Justice
md II So 1t recognises prceXsng state OF war; with
the consequences properly resulting hercirom. 1t is OBJ
vous, that the whole ground examined, and that the
preceding supuatons, so far they acceptable
We're embodied in the treaty. In other way can
Cherokccs, 10 send Deputy Congress-
bc accounted for 1t is privilege they would long
have claimed, and which they might claim if the
Treaty of Hopewell were in force.
The treaty of October i70S commences bv reciiing the
reasons which prevented the due execution the treaty
OF Holston OF 1871, and which had also operated delay
the execution the treaty OF Phaepha of 1914 which
tegty Establishing treaties, -evidenty abiding TO the
treaty OF Hoston and its auncts proceeds make
engagements for running and marking the boundary line
The treaty OF loPewel unnoticcd and in fact disappears
from the history of Cherokee intercourse, with the
exception of one incidental allusion 10 it,
Our object in these remarks, is relieve the sub.
Ject from useless embarrassment, than because attach
any Importance 10 the provisions of this treaty will be
perceived that they are essentially the with those in
the treaty oil Hoson though perhaps rather favora-
bic TO the view we take il indulge criticisms:
MS 1t processes to g'pe pedee'-o make allotment OF
"hunting grounds, sc. But really consider any dis
tncton drawn from the forms of expression as unworthy OF
the subject and unjust TO the Indians.
Beginning then, with the treaty fIIoson and
mating with that OF Teco, in 1888 whc the last rca
y with the Cherokees prior the execution of the com
pact between the United States and Georgia, April 81
1902, by which all 'clam, right and title" OF the United
states 40 the jurisdiction and soil Of any lands lying
within the limits of Georgia. were coded 10 that State
let us ascertain, whether there any grants oursdic
ton TO the Cherokee inconsistent with the enc
ration OF the laws OF Georgia
Having already given abstract of the treaty of Hol-
sion, which contains all the provisions upon this subject we
shall merely relcrto those which cam by any constructions
be considered as grants of political power making few
passing remarks upon the others
In this examination place of view all powers de-
elared TO exist IN the United States and which have been
usually exercised by civilized governments in their inter
advanced upon this subject by the American Commission
at Client, and already quoted.
The whole view, taken by these Commissioners j. O.
Adams J. A. Bayad, III. Clay, Jonathan Russell and Al
bert t'alan, contains lucid exposition of the doctrine
arising out of Indian relations and rendered necessary
by the metaphysical specuIaonS Of the British Commits
sonefs, who bewideTed themselves in abstract nyespo
TONS and in attempting TO deducc consequences alto
gcthcr Incompatible with the express siipulaions Of Indian
treaties, and their obvious relations with United STATES
from thc forms Of those treaties. Conending that the
parties were independent and both sovereign because they
entered into mutual negotiations, which declared the de-
pcndence OF tho one, and the sovereignty of the other
IL has no doubt been deemed prudent from time 10 fine
70 insert IN these Indian treaties provisions dccaratory Of
the powers OF the United States, that such course
was at all necessary 10 the exercise these powers but
because their insertion and PRONUNCIATION would remind
the Indians OF their duties and of the general authority Of
the white Copies of these are deposited with
them, and preserved with great care. when read at hor
request the obligations imposed upon them arc brought TO
their recollectOn
There are but two provisions in the treaty of Uoston
which have the slightest appearance of any grant of m
rlichon to the Cbsrokecs, of any recognition of their
powers of government These are found i'm the sl and
18th articles BY the former, citizens of the u States
settling the Cherokee lands forfeit the protection of
the United States and may be punished by the Cberoees
or not, they please by the latter retaliation or rcpris
is not 10 he committed, m satisfaction shall have been de-
Inanded by he party, Of which the agressor is and shall
have been refused"
Aud hrs with respect TO the punishment Of an outlaw
The object IL, not to confer jurisdiction upon the Cero-
" "a let. IL