The Van Buren press., 1859-07-06
FRAN Esn'on's Thirty Yeers n the .Seaa.e.
The Cession Of Arkansas.

e,h boundary was established by act of
Congress in May 1924 (chiefiv by the exer-
tons OF her then delegate, Henry w. Con-
way ),-and was an extension of her exist
ing boundary on that side; and for nation
al anu state reasons. 1t was an outside
terri,or{-beyon1 the Mississippi-a from
TIER both to Mexico (then brought deep into
.he valley OF the Mississippi by the Florida
treaty which gave away TeXas), and to the
numerous Indian tribes then being removed
from the South Atlantic States to the west
OF the Mississippi. Itwas, therefore point
oil nation policy to make her strong-to
make her first class State,-both for her
own sake and that of the Union,-and equal
to all the exigencies of her advanced and
frontier position. The extension was on
west-the boundaries on the other three
sides being fixed and immovable-and add
ed fertile belt-a parallelogram of forty
miles by three hundred along her whole
western border-and which was necessary
to compensate for the swamp lands in front
on the river, and to give to her certain val
uablc salt springs there existing, and natu-
rally appurtenant to the territory ,and essen
tial to its inhabitants Even with this ex-
tension she was still deficient in arabic land
NOT as strong as her frontier position re-
quircd her to be, nor susceptible on account
OF swamps and sterile districts) of the pop
ulation and cultivation which her superficial
contents and large boundaries would imply
her to be. Territorially, and in mere ex-
tent, the western addition was a fourth part
OF the territory: agriculturally, and in ca
pacity for population, the addition might
be equal to half of the whole territory ard
Its acquisition was celebrated as a most au-
spicious event for Arkansas at the time that
it occurred
In the Month of May, 1928, by treaty
negotiated at Washington by the Secretary
at War, Mr.. James Barbour, on one side,
and the chief of the Cherokee Nation on
the other, this new western boundary for
the territory was abolished-the old line
re-eStablished and what had been an ad-
dition to the territory of Arkansas, was
ceded to the Cherokees. On the ratification
of tlhs treaty several questions arose, all
raised BY myselt-some df principle, some
of expediency-as, whether a law of Con-
gress could be abolished by an Indian treaty?
and whether it/was expedient so to reduce,
and thus weaken the territory land future
State) of Arkansas? | was opposed to
the treaty. sand held the negative Of both
questions, and argued against them with
zeal and perseverance. The supremacy of
the treaty making power | held to be con-
fined to subjects within its sphere, and quot
ed .)efferson's Manual" to show that that
was the sense in which the clause in the
was understood The treaty
making power was supreme; but that su-
premacy was within its proper orbit, and
free from the invasion of the Legislative,
executive, or judicial department The
proper objects OF treaties We're International
which neither party could regu-
late by municipal law, and which required
a joint consent, and a double execution. to
give it effect. Tried by this test, and this
Indian treaty lost its supremacy The sub
Iect was one of ordinary legislation, and
specially and exclusively confined, to Con-
gress. 1t was to repeal law which Con-
gress had made il. relation to territory and
and to reverse the disposition which Con-
gress had made of a part Of its territory.
To Congress it belonged to dispose of ter
ritory and to her it belonged 10 repeal ho.
own laws. The treaty avoided the word
'' repeal" while doing the thing it used
the word " abolish which was the same
in effect, and more arrogant AMI offensive
not appropriate to legislation, and evident
ly used to avoid the use of word which
would challenge objection. If the word
So repeal had been used, every one would
have felt that the ordinary legislation of
Congress was fagrantly invaded and the
avoidance of another of the same meaning,
could have no effect in legalizing sransac-
ton which would be condemned under its
proper name And so ] held the treaty
10 be invalid for want Of a proper subject
10 act upon, and because it invaded the
legislative department.
The inexpedicncy of the treaty was In
The question of crippling and mutilating
Arkansas, reducing her to the class of weak
States, and that against all the reasons
which had induced Congress four years be- |
lore, to add on twelve thousand square
miles to her domain and to almost double |
The productive and inhabitable capacity of
The Territory, and future State, by the char
lcter of the country added. l felt this |
wrong to Arkansas doubly, both as neigh
Dor to my own State, and because, having
, friendship for the delegate, as we'll as for
his territory, had exerted myself to OBJ
fa1n the a0ult1On winch nau Deen thus cut
off. / argued, as | thought, conclusively;
but in vain. The treaty was largely rati-
led, and by a strong slayeholding vote,
it curtailed slave territory,
and made soil free which was then slave
Axious to defeat the treaty for the benefit
Of Arkansas, l strongly presented this con-
showing that there was not only
egal, but actuall slavery upon the alsSSu-
lated part-that these twelve thousand
square miles Were inhabited. organized into
counties, populous,:&% Il some parts, and with
The due prPfFortion of slaves found in
and planting State. Nothing
woYl1d do. 1t was southern measure, ne
sSfated, on the record, by southern sec
etary at war, in reality by the clerk, Nc
Kinney and voted for by nineteen approx,
ng slaveholding senator's against four dis
enting. The affirmative vote was: Messrs.
Barton, Berricn, Bouligny, Branch, Ezekiel
chambers, Cobb. King of Alabama, Me-
Hinley, McLape of Delaware, Macon, |
Ridgely, Smith of Maryland, Smith of s. |
CAROLINA, John Tyler of Virginia, and
Williams of Mississippi. The negative
vas, Messrs. Benton, Eaten. Brown, and
r., Calhoun fhan Vics- I