Kansas weekly herald., 1854-09-15

lyy between treaty with fofeign power and
treaty with Indians, who aresubjects Of the u
States. Examples may be dted Of acts of Con
lgress which operate so as Il modify or amen.
treaties with Indians.s Asiheir sovereign ani
their guardian, we have occasionally assumed
to do this, acting on their interest and our own
and not in such case viollting engagements witf
them but seeking to give more beneficial eff
fectto such engagements; for though they be
weak, and we strong, tley subjects, and we mas.
ters, yet they not the less entitled to the ex
ercise towards them of the most scrupulous
good faith on the par. of the United States.''
This so far as it goes is unexceptionable.
Now the treaty making power is a peculiar
feature incur frame of government. It is the
Only instance where the. constitutions feposes
legislative functions in the executive. And i!
dosszp II fnstahre IJ6Fder that prelimina.
ry transaetions with for ign nations, may have
the advantage of secrecy and dispatch. Al
though the House, the popular branch of Con-
gress has no voice in forming treaty, it yet
no less the law ofthe land when concluded. In
1896, the House of representatives resolved that
it had right to decide IS to the.Sxp pediency or
inexpediency Of atreaty when ths ipulations
tsassreef ds2snded on an act sef Coaetess, Rpt
the soundest statesmen of the country, have pro-
nounced that resolution Unconstitutional. And
when in 1916, "a similar resolution was attempt
ed to be passed, it met with defeat. Neyerthe-
less, an actof Congress being the united will of
the executive and Legislature, is sof course supe-
rior to treaty. An act of Congress is public
ly discussed in the house and senate, and finds
its way to all the people treaty. is drawn up
and ratified in secret-the rational inference
must be that the public law has precedence. H
the President and Senate can make a treaty, the
President, Senate and House can unmake it. No
body can doubt that. Such is the authority Of
Congress over treaties with foreign nations.
Over treaties with the Indians it is much more
extensive and peculiar. And why I? Not by
any means that wrong and injustice may be done
them, but because of. the peculiar relations in
which they stand to the United States. The re-
i Is similar to that between guardian and
ward They have nEser bs,,.., regarded as ow-
ners OF the soil they livesupon, nor as citizens
of the country. While the European States
held the title to the territory, the Indians were
liable to the.unscrupulous policy of extermina
ton and conquest. But since the United States
-
purchased the soil of Franee-for a largo sum-
their TigfTts and iaterests have been more care
fully guarded. They have thus been defended
from foreign aggression and from the violence
of feuds among themselves. The general gov
ernment has extended its bounty to them as it
never has done to our own citizens even It is
considered unconstitutional to grant land for
the benefit Of the INDECENT insane in the coun-
Try ; bat the government has year after year,
furnfshed~ III thtf5-'1nSi ians with money, with
clothing and with education. As they have
been aKerse to civilized and enlightened life,
Congress has never yet relinquished its right to
supervise their affairs as their welfare and the
good of the country might dictate. As means
of consulting with them, and ascertaining their
condition and interests, the practice has grown
up of.forming treaties with them. think it
mas generally occurred that clause has been
inserted IN these treaties permitting Congress
to amend them. Such clause exists in the
Delaware treaty. However, it has never been
sypnosed by our highest courts, by Congress,
nor least of all, BY TN tfsmselses, that
these treaties were not subject to revision and
alteration as circumstances might require. The
frequent exercise of this right has made its ex-
istence well understood. Certainly no one
would wish to see it converted into an instru-
ment of evil to them. Nor have they expert
enced any such result from its exercise. In re-
gard to the first inquiry, it may then be <dceis-
lively asserted, that it is the right and duty of
Congress, to modify and amend treaties with
the Indian tribes when occasion demands.
In the next place, does the act of Congress,
before alluded to, open the Delaware lands to
private entry and pre-emption Nothing can
be clearer than the words of the Statute. 1t
provides that, whenever the Indian title is, or
shall be extinguished, then the right of pre-
emption shall accrue. :. If it was the intention
of Congress to except the Delaware, and other
large tracts from the operation of the act, why
was notthe exception specifically made When
important interests are at stake law should be
construed according to its literal and apparent
meaning unless there are principles and usages
which show beyond reasonable doubt, diff
ferent meaning. Now is there reasonable cause
to believe that Congress with full view Of al
the treaties, by including all lands meant tc
except nearly seven hundred thousand acres Of
the best in the territory? :? Does the interest oi
the Indians require the law to be twisted int
such meaning? So far from this being tht
case it is clear as before intimated that the en-
try and settlement of part of the land viii
raise the value of the rest. It is we'll known
that the general government grants lands to ter
ritories and states for the purpose of building
railroads, &C., in order to enhance the value o
the public lands adjoining. On the same prin
ciple the De1awares will derive advantage b,
the establishment of towns, and the admission
lof settlers on the land ceded by them. Nor
it at ali improper that this motive should haT
Influenced Congress in bringing these lands un
der the general rule When it is considered tha
its policy all along has been such as to secur
the prosperity and comparative wealth OF tn