Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-10-22

subssug between the United States and the Cherokees
aud that those treaties having guaranteed the soil and the
jurisdiction to the Indians, the State has right either
This question differs from that of Georgia in the mpor
an particular, that the treaties adduced i'm bar of the
gh, oil the state were In existence before the State
auht,d into the ODon and as such OF the
di'ions Of admission In Georgia. the State claimed rights
n,eeeden, to the treaty - Baltimore dmeriean
| CASE or JURisDicrIoN-The Fail Term OF the Cir
cult Court fr the county of 81. Clair, (hs Honor m
A1air presi,ng) closed s session THURSDAY evening
week. Tie case o Scott Msnkiler Cherokee Indian
Who Indicted Tor the murder his brother Buck Man
killer, excited considerable interest both from the
Of the proceedings ana the OF the point decided
John Ridge, native, OF good mind and fine
ueng sworn, read and interpreted the TO the
accused upon his mt who being Ask
ed whether guilty not guilty replied in
suc'ed, that lac would respond through his counsel
hercuPUn plea flied the jurisdiction of the court
stating IN substance, that the said Scott Nankrr was
native OF the Cherokee nation OF lnans-thal the of.
ence charged committed in that naon-tat he wa.
aehabe 10 the laws thereof aud subject 10 the juris-
dicon o the tribunal hcU,e which lac DIS then arr,yn.
eu The solicitor put IN special replication the eec,
ina, the offence cOmitted within the con.u,jon.
limits OF the Safe OF Alabama and in that part of the 8,
called Cherokee ndon which had been attached to- and
made part ol tie county OF ST. Clair.
IN TIE argument two points taken for the III son,
i That the State ot Alabama had no riyht Il, extern,
s jurisdiction over the Indian nation. within its chartered
n'-snd "a. conceding the right the OF the Lcsis
'''uic u'd not embrace the case under consideration
! We shall not attempt To give even synop.is oil III,
course OF me argument The treaties of the u. State
with The Chcrokces, and the decision of the S,pree Cour
IN the OF the Missionaries were aJyereJ tn "a ss
tanning the first poon-and the terms OF tho ac, OF IN,
iegsiiure, extending the jurisdiction of the State owe
the INDIANS, were conceived 10 be decisive of the second
YIN oeh"ii OF the State II contenJed that the urs
eoh OF The State was cotomporaneou with its
'nd co-cSensive with its chartered lims-at,achiup a.
huc 10 one part oil its Territory anothcr-that the ac
extending us jurisdiction was supcrerogaory-exra lie
gauNc- aud merely notified the people of the Distrc,
aeNed mat The power OF the State, heretofore in abey
ahce was IN action among them, and complied with tina
provision OF the constitution which declares that i'm Al
criminal prosecutions the accused has right TO speed
Puc u's by an impartial jury OF the county or district
'n ch'ch the otence SHAH haze been commitfed
me court sustained the plea 10 The jurisdiction and dis
charged the defendant The writer wa. not present whe
me opinion was delivered, but understood il to be Imi,.
,he hr' point and founded upon the that Aaba
mad become member the Union, with full kno wIeJg
OF NE treaties then stirg between the IT, States am
NE Cherokee 'ndsDs-that they were The supreme La
c iaid aud guaranteed in terms by impc alton III
" soi all" Jnr,sdIcnon and that The State in extend
ing mo laws over the Indian, had ran.ce nded its
tu'ional powers 80
counsel Tor the State, VIM Acklen Esq Collector
me decndsn', Jas. w NJ Chung, Esq OF iii. place an
NJ W. Lindsay, Esq OF So,nnerville Huntsville I'D,