True Democrat. (Paulding, Miss.) 1845-18??, 1845-09-24

iOCdle Oh OtHer ldnQSs
It is generally conceded that, in viola
ton ofthis provision, a vast deal of the
most valuable land of the nation, living
principally in the prairie and the richest
land districts, was reserved and appropria-
ted to individuals. 1t must be kept in
mind, that whatever is reserved TO an indi.
vIdual Indian is so much distracted from
the general Chickasaw fund; and ifthe u.
nlted States have NAL administered the
treaty, by allowing land 10 Indians who
were not entitled to such birth-right, the
Chlckasaw nation has claim in good con-
science Oh the United States, under the
treaty, for compensation. For an illustra-
ton, letus take one case and run it through
the courts: and Eek uno, disco omneS': for
l believe that more than one hundred cases
could be hunted up by keen scented In
dian dealer Suppose the Chickasaw ma
ton file bill against the United States,
for the land or for the value of the section
OF land on which the town of Pontotoc is
located, and prove TO the satisfaction ofthe
court, that the Indian who was here locat-
ed, was not entitled TO any reservation, or,
if entitled, that he was bound under the
treaty to take another and different section
OF far less value. And suppose the court
should decree that that section of land be-
longed to the ChickaSaw nation, or that
the United States should account for" its
value, which will suppose to be equal at
the present time to 100000. Now, if
the attorney IN every in every case, could
make the Ignorant and confding" Chick
asa%, fork over one half, this would be a
rich harvest, and | apprehend the aborers
would not be wanting.
In what way all this might have effected
innocent holders OF land; what disturbance
and uncertainty would arise in the commu-
nifty; and how for the proof, which might
be easily prepared, would effect existing
titles, 1t not necessary for me TO deter
mine. But as fraud vitates all contracts
and renders them void, abinitio, the patent
OF the government could not protect the
present owner ofthe land. Heretofore the
effort has been TO obtain lands for Indians;
pass this law, and the process would
change, and the cry would be the Infamous
conduct OF the former officers of the gov.
ernment, and the grevouS and wholesale
plnndar of the nie.aorant end eotsfiasA-n
Indian nation. This consider the 'grea-
test enormity."
might go farther, but here shall stop:
for am fully satisfied that measure 10
which such objections will Justly lie, will
Ind but few advocates in Mississippi, and
10 man would be willing to rest his hopes
or popular favor on bill Of such a char
lcter. But while j am forced thus to char
lcterlze this intended law, / do not know
hat those who favored il, saw the exten.
i've and dangerous judiciary given by it
the courts. claim TO be honest In my |
opposition to the meaSure-I an free TO
oncede that its advocates are equally hon.
ST. Therefore | must suppose them mis-
aiken, and, doubtless they view nv course
n the same light. II is for you to Judge
'etween us, aud 10 your decision I shall
ubmt with cheeriulness.
But portion Of my speech on this bill,
as been so often quoted and so improperly
Interpreted, that il is duet trnth and frank.
eSs that ! should correct the erroneous
there remark, "But have
ad my difficulties in coming up 10 this
ppoSitlon. | have friends urging the pas.
AGE ofthlS bill-iTlendS that have served
nd whose wishes hate 10 thwAn. But a
'nse OF duty, &c, has impeled me 10
lake This explanation OF the enormilies
tins bill; and having done so, cheer
lily submit the result TO the free action of
IS House" II is SAID in some strong and
Iuslic articles which have noticed, that
e friends alluded 10 were DIR. VIM. nj.
win and Hon. Robert J. Walker. The
e ofthe word in the plural number, has
TO this mistake. did not allude 10
=. Walker. He never al any time, or in
~ way, spoke TO me in relation 10 this
u; aud IN resisting IFS passage, 1 did not
nslder one moment that Twas interfering
ia his wishes, or that my action on il
ould interrupt the uniform kind feelings
at had supposed 10 exist between rs. L
Iow that, IN many cases, a representative
ows himself 10 yield his assent to mea-
res OF private nature, which he is very
ling TO see defeated. And in this very
se, my relations with Dr. Gwin had been
en- that Il was great trial Of my firm. !
IS TO resist the passage OF bin, which I
eY he was very desirous 10 pas. We c
d been long friends, keeping I3 con- Z
nt and intimate correspondence: We had 4
m colleagues IN Congress ia irving Z
les and We had never differed on snV
ierlal measure. I hated 70 fhwarf his
N 10 mass the hill Il rrar.rr.1 d. - 2