Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-09-14
OCCURRENCE IN ALABAMA.

death, appears likely to be source at much ex-
ci,ement. The Nashville Republican OF the slst
ult says:-
.. In our last We extracted from the Columbus
IRquirer brief account ct the death OF Col. O"en
in the Greek Nation. which occurred IN at at.
tempt by party Of U. s. troops to remove him
from the nation as an intruder. A statement OF
the facts published in the Montgomery Ad,er'
tiser conclusively relieves either the troops or
the Deputy Marshal from any i,nputation Of
blame in the affair. The conduct Of the deceased
had been reprehensibIe and wholly without ex-
cuse. By the most respectable white testimony
il was proved, that he had forcibly deprived five
Indians of their farms, killed their hogs, robbed
their graves, and broken without provocation the
arm Of an Indian Woman. Notwithstanding these
violent outrages, the Marshal exercised the Ut
most torb. arance, and endeavoured by persuasion
10 induce him to leave the nation; and 1t was not
until he had attempted repeatedly to shoot the
Marshal, To blow the troops up with gunpo"der,
aud raised his pistol TO shoot one OF the guard.
that soldier shot him through the head"
A letter FROM Gov. Gayle, Of Alabama. to the
Secretary of War, says:-
!" An attempt by the Deputy Marshal of the
southern district OF Alabama. to remove an iDdI-
vidual by the name OF Owens. from premises al
legged to belong to an Indian, has resulted in the
teS ct the supposed trrspa>ser. Adetachment
o, United States soldiers. on the requisitiun Of
The Deput, Marshal, "as placed under his direc-
tioa ard ,he deceased was shot by one of these
soldiers the irrqurnt incursions Of this officer
with IA armed 'n,'". among our Inhabitants, re.
siding IN I've country acquired from the Creek
lnians, NTH the Purpo," OF settling disputes be-
tv cen them and re l0Ilans, have produced very
general Lis-.ti> a ton, which, since the killing
oil Onen, mas ri-"n Ia an excitement, that, 1t not
pur ~,.!t 49,. ~s~------f--~~--
+, ,,. General Government and to the authOriueS
of this State
IL. i. M, my purpose to show that the con-
due, O, III, Marshal was improper, or that an
offence has been committed against our laws;
I'M, I, request that the government refer me com
plain,s Of the Indians, to tribunal less ooJrc,
,i,nable tran that Of the Marshal with an armed
su!dlery."
1t NAV not be amiss to appeal to the ao"'e,
some obser, atoms on The case from the pen OF
the editor of the Cincinnati Gazette, who is an
bile jurist.
$. When President Jackson came into Of
flee, it had been the established doctrine "' '"e
Government of the United States from its t"un'
IN.
finn over the Indian lands or laws. within their
,or,;,or,aI limits This ductrine President Jack.
son upcetemoniously reversed IN the case ot the
-controversy between the state OF Georgia anu the
I,d;ans. He disavowed the authority OF the
United States to protect the Indians within Tie
State against the actions OF the State.
"A case occurred recently, which places IN a
strong light the mischievous tendency OF the new
doctriue The treaty with the Creek Indians OF
Ma Oh, 1882, contains the following stipulation.
:. An ,ntrudcrs upon the country hereby coded.
shall be removed by law from the public ianf,
until the country is surveyed and the selections
made; excepting, however, from this provision,
those white persons who have made their own
improvements, and not expelled the Greeks from
theirs Such persons may remain until their
crops are gathered. After the country is sur.
viewed and the selections made, this article shall
not operate upon tina, part Of it not included IN
such selections. But intruders shall, IN the
manner before described. be removed from those
selections for the term Of five years from the ra'
LITIGATION Of this treaty, or until the same are
con, eyed to white persons
"In July last, the indians applied to the Mar
sha, Of the District, who had instructions upon
the subject, to remove man OF the name d wv
on who was resident on part OF the land. The
for that purpose. Owen resisted, 10 great v'o.
lence, and was killed in the afray. This ttans.
action presents another dilemma II the Go
yernment Of the United States have no consntu'
t,uual power to protect the Indians, in their own
territory, no authority could be conferred. on the
, Marshal and the military. to remove Oven. In
attempting it they outraged the law HIS res's'
lance vas legal, and his death murder.
II, Is TO be understood that a'"uch no sueh
posi,ion. But il would seem that the conclusion
results necessarily from the doctrine OF the Pres
iIen, in the case of Georgia. An editorial art''
Gle in the Globe, no dou6t written by the Score
tary Of War, essays to distinguish the two cases;
as i, appears to me, with very little success, up
on hi. own principles. The defence OF the mea-
sure is placed upon the fact that, BY the treaty.
the U. 5. became owner Of the land, and as own
er. under law Of 1907, had power to remove IN.
truders from her own domains. This law 81
1907 Was made for Mr.. Livingston and his bat.
ture at New Orleans, and has ever been consider
ed BY many Of the best jurists in the country, as