The New York herald., 1850-05-18
THE GALPHlN CLAIM.
THE MAJORITY REPORT.


ne Undersigned, members OF inc cOlnmlttee APP
pointed TO make investigation into the origin and
nature OF the Gaphin claim, together with such
other matters connected with it as may be neces-
sary TO full understanding of lis merits, and the
mode OF settlement, beg leave 10 report, that
The facts of the case set forth in the report of
the majority OF the committee, exhibit its history !;
and a brief examination of The opinion of the At
torney General will enable us not only to deter
mine the character of the cllm, but 10 decide upon
the propriety of allowance of Interest upon It. The
obligation Of the United States TO pay the debts,
seem TO be derived from the fact that, upon the
scession by Georgia Ito the language OF the At
torney Genera) TO the United States, in 1902 the
latter became liable for the stplations OF the
treaty of l773, and bound in law and honor TO exc
cute them" How the United States are liable we
are not told but left TO infer that inasmuch
the United States became bound by the terms
and conditions of that cession, TO extingush :" the
Indian title to all the other lands within the State
Of Georgia." il became bound to extinguish any
outstanding title which might be in those lands.
Whether this was so, depends entirely upon the
fact of its being an Indian title. The United States
was bound to eXunguish no other; but their obli-
cation to extinguish was perfect
The treaty OF 1913 conveyed the Indian title to
the British crown, and passed, TO be sure, loaded
with the ncumbrance of these claims of Galphn,
together with the claims of Others; but the entire
title of the Indians passed. The traders executed
releases to the Indians, and the Indians ceded the
lands, and all the liabilities between the two
settled and defintively closed. The legal title
vested in the crown; Galphin, it may BE-, had an
equitable lien but the remainder was in the crown,
and no reversionary interest was left behind No
event, short OF actual repurchase could reinvest the
title in the Indians They had neither title nor in
terest left, present, prospective, or contingent.
The proceedings OF the war of the revolution
placed the State of Georgia in the stead OF the
British crown, and she became seized of the latter's
title, and subject TO its liabilities. But what stpu
latons, part of the stipuatons of the treaty of
1773, the United States became liable for, by the
conditions of the cession of 1902, is not easy TO
understand.
The burden of the stipulation to apply the pro-
ceeds OF the land TO pay Galphin's lain, if il rested
anywhere, was on Georgia, and the title of the
lands was in her. There was title to extinguish
for Georgia's benefit. The lien of Galphin, and
the Indian title, were two quite different things.
The title had been successfully the title of the
Indians, OF the British crown, and of the State of
Georgia but the lien remained the lien of Galphn.
II was but lien, at best, aud could be converted
into title only by proceedings for that purpose.
As lien, il might have been discharged. So far
as it had effect. or impaired or weakened the In
dian title, and from the moment of its creation, it
stood in opposition to it.
If there could be any doubt about the meaning
OF the phrase, used in the agreement and ces-
sion of 1902 brief consideration would explain it.
Georgia had been harrassed and annoyed by the
inroads OF the Indians, and by conflicts between
them and her citizens, in regard to the occupancy
OF certain tracts, and she desired TO have the In
dian title extinguished throughout her entire do
main. II was TO accomplish this that she inserted
the condition which bound the United States to ex-
tinguish it to all the other lands in the State of
Georgia There no dispute in regard to the
occupancy Of the Galphin lands. These had been
settled and occupied by the whites and they had
remained undisturbed for nearly thirty years, when
the agreement of ls02 was made The Indians set
up no claim TO them but they did with regard to
other lands, the occupancy of which they either
retained or claimed, and these were the lands which
Georgia sought TO have relieved. The title of oc-
curancy the Indian title, and il was the title OF
occupancy which she conditioned should be ex
tinguishcd.
''The ultimate fee encumbcred with the right of
Indian occupancy, was in the crown previous TO the
revolution, and in the States of the Union after
wards, subject to ant."Clark VS.. Smith, IL Pet.
les; see L. :. Statutes at large, Indian treaties
''indian possession or occupation was considered
with reference 10 their habits, DC, and their
rights were as much respected. until they aban-
doned them, made a ccsson TO the government, or
an authorized sale to individuals. In either case
tbese rights became extinct, &c Such was the
tenure OF Indian lands, by the laws of all the orgi
nal thirteen States, we'll Georgia. .'-Chero-
kee Nation VS. the State of Georgia, 8 Peters, l.
The laws Of Georgia thus acknowledged no In
dian title TO the Galphn lands. Then, by what rea-
soning can we attach meaning TO the phrase, in
the deed of ccssion of IS02, which the laws of
Georgia herself deny To come directly TO the
case, had the Indians right, in 1873, to have paid
Galphin and assumed, pro tanfo, their title to the
landsf
The stipulation of 1902 was inserted by Georgia.
II inserted for her own benefit; and for the pur
poses OF this u will be admitted that she knew
whether il was intended 10 cover the Galphin claim
whether she held these lands 10y an ''lndian
title" within her meaning, as expressed in the
agreement Of lsO2. What is her testimony! UBi-
formly and constantly she has denied her own OBJ
legation for the debt, and when asked to recon.
mend its payment by the government, Of the United
States. she has refused. Such was the cons;ruc
tion Of the obligation OF the United states towards
her. She the party IN interest the obligation
was due 10 her; she knew the title which she in
tended to describe, and she denied its existence in
regard TO the lands encountered by Galphin's
claim; This alone disposes of the case. Besides
the obligations on the paIt of the United States
existed hs between her aud Georgia; they arc the
fruits of spulations entered between two indepen-
dent governments, from motives Of policy, for the
benefit Of each, and either party had right TO re-
lievc the other from all any part OF the agree
ment. To deny this, would be subverslye OF the
very end and object Of government II individual
rights could arrest the action of the government in
this respect, its policy would no longer be within
its own control IL would cease to he govern
.ment.
Tha, Georgia had an undoubted right to annu
that particular stipulation, and release hc govern
ment Of the United States from its fIllIneni, can
not be dened and her right TO release u, (even II
we admit thatth obligation bad exs,ed.) when
on fofmal apple alton her Legislature refused 10
knowledge II as the duty OF the government Of the
United States TO pay the debt, follows as conse-
.quence, from which we can see no escape.
The various treaties by which the Indians ceded
additional lands, and removed their boundary lines
further frcm the original settlements of the whites,
of necessity include confirmation Of their pre-
vious grants. A number Of treaties OF this sort
were held subsequent TO the treaty OF iTI3 They
were held at Hopcwel New York. on the ilolston,
at Philadelphia, and at various other places.
By the treaty Of New York, in 1880, the Creek
nation expressly "release, quit claim, relinqush
all the land to the northward and eastward OF the
boundary hnc herein described" A similar pro-
vision is found in the treaty Of 1922, made with
the Cherokees.
In the treaty OF Indian Spring. made in I52l, 1t
was agreed that all the talks had upon the
claims together with ell claims either side, OF
whatever nature or kind, prior to the act OF Con-
gross Of ls2." Nc., should be referred TO the deci-
cf President decision
thus made sholld be lindng. "And in considers
fion of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, paid
TO the State Of Georgia. her commissioners released
the Greek Indians from every claim and claims, oi
whatever description, nature kind the same may
be, which the citizens Of Georgia now have, OF
may have had prior 10 the year 1902, az inst the
said nation" And, in ls25, by the treaty OF the
Indian Springs, the Creek nation cedcd to the
United States all the lands lying within the boun-
daries Of the State OF Georgia, as defined by the
compact herein before cited, now occupied by said