The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-05-19

Geogias but the lien remained the lien OF Galphln-
was but lea al best and could be converted into tide
only by proceedings for that purpose As lien il might
have been discharged So far as IL had effect impaired
and osakseed The Indian title and from the moment Of
as creation, a Stood "a opposition 10 Il.
II there could be any doubt about the meaning OF the
phrase a. used An the agreement and cession OF 1902
orei consideration would explain it. Georgia had been
harased and annoyed by the nroads OF the Indians and
BY conflicts between them and her citizens in regard 10
The occupancy OF certain tracts and she desired 70 have
! The Indian iille' extinguished throughout her entire
domain II 10 accomplish this that she inserted the
condition which bound the United States to exlinguish
TO all the other lands within the Stale OF Georgia
was no dispute IN regard to the occupancy OF the
by the whites. and they had remained undisturbed for
nearly thirty years when the agreement OF 1902 was
made The Indians set up no claim TO them, but they
retained or claimed and these The lands which
Georgia sought to have relieved The title OF occupan
cy was the Indian tte and il the title OF occupancy
which she conditioned should be extinguished.
The ultimate lee, incumbered the right OF Indian
upancy was In the Crown previous 10 The revolution
grant(c CLARK o. smith, is Pet. Is5-See u s. Statutes
at Large, Indian Treaties, I'D
reference g their habits sc and their rights were as much
respected until they abandoned them, made cession TO
either case their rights became extine Ne Such was The
tenure Of Indian lands by ne ' q sa the osiaa 'hr.
State OF Georgia, Peters, -
The ia1s Of Georgia thus acknowledged no Indian
title to the Galphn lands Then by What reasoning
We attach meaning to the phrase 10 the deed of cesson
come directly to the case, had the Indians right in
s4s to Paiy Gaphn and resume pro tanto their title
in the lands!
The stipulation OF 1902 was inserted BY Georgia. II
inserted for her benefit and for the purposes OF
the case. will be admitted that she knew whether
intended TO cover the Gaphin claim; whether she held
those lands BY an Indian title within her meaning
expressed in the agreement Of 1902 What her esl-
monyi Uniformly and constantly she has denied her
own obligation for the debt and when asked to recon
IN nd na lusn hu I'm aft ha IfutfaH
States she has refused Such has been her construction
Of the obligation OF the United States towards her She
was the party an interest the obligation due to her
she knew the title which she intended describe, and
she denied its existence in regard to the lands ncum
bered by Gaphias claim This alone dsposes Of the case
Besides. the obligation on the part Of the United STATES
existed as between her and Georgia. They were the
fruits OF stpulaons entered into between two ndepend
ent governments from motives OF policy, for the benefit of
each, and either party had right to relieve the other
from all or any part OF the agreement To deny this
would be subvesve OF the very end and object OF gov
eminent If individual rights could arrest the action OF
government IN thus respect s policy would no longer
ernment That Georgia had undoubed right to annul
that particular stipulation and release the government
of the United States from its fulmen cannot be denied
and her right to release il from any part Of that
stipulation is equally clear That she did re.
lease il. (even if we admit that the obligation
had exsied,) when, on formal application her legs-
ature refused 10 ackno Wedge il as he duty OF The gov
eminent OF the United States to pay the debt follows
consequence, from which can escape.
tiona lands, and removed their boundary lines further
from the original settlements of the whites, OF necessity
included a confirmation OF their previous grants A
number Of treaties of this sort held subsequent
the treaty Of 1873 They were held at Hopewel, New
York. on the Hoston, al Philadelphia, Colerain, and at
various other places.
expressly "reease, quit claim relnquish, and cede all
the land to the norhward and of the boundary
line hereia described" similar provision is TO be
found in the treaty OF 1884, made with the Cherokees
n / WA
agreed tha all the talks had upon the claims together
with all claims on either side, Of schateuer nature kind
prior TO the act of Congress OF ls02" &C., should be
feed to the decision OF the President and that he
decision thus made should be binding" And in consid
Grafton OF two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, paid
the State OF Georgia. her commissioners released the
Greek Indians IRON every claim and claims, OF schat-
description, nature, kind the may be- which
the citizens OF Georgia now have may have had prior
to the year lso2 against the said nation And in 1925 by
the treaty OF the Indian Springs, the Creek nation ceded
g 10 the United States all the lands lying within the
boundaries oil the State OF Georgia, defined BY the
compact hereinbeioe cited occupied by said nation
or TO which said nation have title claim" This
peted the cesson OF Indian lands, far the Creek
nation was concerned within the boundaries OF Georgia.
and fulfilled the contract and discharged the obligation
imposed upon The United States by the agreement OF lSo2
And by the treaty OF New Echot in 1885, the Cherokees
did cede, relnqush, and convey TO the United States all
The lands Owned claimed, or possessed BY them east OF
the Mississippi river" Thus Indian title NAMED in
ls4s to either OF these tribes within the limits OF Geor
ga; and whatever title may have remained in the Gal
But, admitting for the argument that Georgia took the
lands in question: and held them by the Indian title for
the purposes OF the trust that title merged when
she made her grants The misappcaon OF the proceeds
did not affect the title The grantees not bound to
that the Stale OF Georgia paid Gaphins en II he had
nor could the lien have been enforced against them
In contemplation oil law, the grantees would have done
enough when they relied on the dignity OF the State IL
time OF and revolution, and the sewerage seized
the fund, and appropriated IL TO the public use. The
necessities OF State demanded the destruction OF the
trust and il fell before her sovereignty. The lien OF Gal
phn vanished and whatever obligations her action
have imposed on Georgia, IL for Georgia and the
Indian title. Thus examine il may, the claim lien
OF Gaphin was not within the meaning OF the agreement
Of ls02 is suggested however, that there is another
point oil view from which obligation might on
the part OF the United States 10 pay this debt The AT
orney General does not present IT, lie probably lis
weakness II IS supposed by some, that the lands
question trusfund IN the possession OF Georgia,
soldiers OF the revolutionary transferred in point Of
fact 10 the government OF the United States, and aphin
having right to pursue this fund.- the general govern
nent became bound TO pay his claim.
IL Is, however, essential 10 this conclusion that the fact
should be first established that the government OF the
this sol Al the tine OF the OF the revolution, Geor
ga North Carolina, Virginia. Maryland Pennsylvania
New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, each pos
sessed and owned vacant and nnapproprated lands and
each OF them, with the exception OF Connecticut donated
them IN bountes to their soldiers These State
donations The old Congress donated in similar
bounty lands all the soldiers OF that war; without
The donations Of The STATES were held TO have been pecu
ary for themselves; the donations OF Congress were
Tor the interest OF all TO have Unidentified the States
Tor the grants they made would, IN point OF fac have