Martinsburg gazette and public advertiser. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1826-1833, 1833-09-26

| the States could exercise no jurisdic-
ton over the Indian lands or laws, with
in their territorial limits. This doctrine
President Jackson unceremoniously re-
versed, in the case Of the controversy
between the State Of Georgia and the
Indians. He disavowed the authority
of the United States to protect the In
dams within the State against the ac-
tons ofthe State.
ga case occurred recently, which
places in strong light the mschieyous
tendency Of the new doctrine. The
treaty with the Creek Indians Of March,
1882, contains the following stiPula-
ton: "All intruders upon the country
hereby coded, shall be removed by law
from the public land, until the country
is surveyed and the selections made;
excepting, however, from this proyl-
sion, those white persons who have
made their own improvements, and not
expelled the Creeks from theirs. Such
persons may remain until their crops
are gathered. After the country is
surveyed and the selections made, this
article shall not operate upon that part
of it not included in such selections:-
But intruders shall, in the manner be-
fore described, be removed from those
selections for the term of five years
from the ratification Of this treaty, or
until the same are conveyed to white
persons.
ain July last, the Indians applied to
the Marshal of the District, who had
instructions upon the subject, to remove
a man of the name of Owen, who was
a resident on part of the land. The
Deputy Marshal proceeded with mi
itary force for that purpose. Owen
resisted, in great violence, and was
killed in the affray. This transaction
presents another dilemma. If the Co
vernmcnt of the United States have nc
constitutional power to protect the In
dams, in their own territory, no autho.
rity could be conferred, on the Mar.
shall and the military, to remove Owen.
In attempting it they outraged the law.
His resistance was legal, and his death
murder.
at is to be understood that avouch
no such position. But it would seem
that the conclusion results necessarily
from the doctrine of the President in the
case of Georgia. An editorial article
in the Globe, no doubt written by the
Secretary of War, essays to distinguish
the two cases; as it appears to me, with
very little success, upon his own prin.
ciples. The defence Of the measure is
placed upon the fact that, by the trea.
ty, the U. S. became owner of the land
and as owner, under a law of 1907,
had power to remove intrudcrs from
her own domains. This law of 1907
was made for Mr.. Livingston and hi;
batture at New Orleans, and has ever
been considered, by many of the bes
lurists in the country, as of doubtful
conSttutionaity. But it is not my
r purpose to discuss any legal or consti
tutional question. | only propose tC
show, that consequences are continual
ly sprlnging up, which demonstrate the
evils of the new doctrine, and affecting
the life, liberty, and property of indi.
viduals, involve its authors in unex
pected perplexities. We may well in
sisf, that the very intrusions which &C.
: casion the disturbances, have taken
place, from the belief that there was
immunity secured to them by that doc
trine."