FEB. 3, 1832.]

Chickasaw Treaty.

[H. or R.

tion, as his military achievements. If, then, the resolu- tives, pursue such course, and use such language, as a tion should be so framed as to have reference only to his sense of propriety and his own judgment should dictate, military services, its effect would be, so far as the resolu-and point out as the most correct, whether it was agreea, tion was concerned, to cut off one-half of his merit--his ble to the honorable member or not. Gentlemen, accordsecond motive was to give the resolution simplicity. The ing to his apprehension, seemed very desirous of bringing simple name, "George Washington," expressed more into this discussion a great mass of extraneous matter. He than if it were accompanied with a whole volume of titles, did not know whether this was done for the purpose of civil or military. drawing the attention of the House from the subject really before it, by involving others less proper for consideration; he only knew that such was the tendency of the ed to consider this call for information as an attack on the Executive; that it was introduced for the purpose of reviving an old and exploded slander. Why so? In the same gratuitous way, it would be quite easy to attribute unworthy motives to the opposition of those gentlemen to the resolution before the House. He [Mr. E.] did not know that this was an attack on the President, or an attack on any one. He had not, indeed, the advantage of knowing so much on the subject alluded to, as those gentlemen. But if this matter had even been a subject of inquiry and

Mr. ADAIR made a reply; no part of which could be heard. The SPEAKER, not having heard the gentleman, in-course pursued. In the first place, gentlemen had affectquired whether he withdrew his amendment; to which question he was understood as replying in the affirmative. On the motions of Mr. TAYLOR and Mr. HOGAN, the phraseology of the resolution was amended, so as to read as follows: Resolved, That a joint committee of the two Houses be appointed, for the purpose of making arrangements for the celebration of the centennial birthday of George Washington.

In which form it was adopted almost unanimously; and, on motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE, it was referred to a com-discussion, as the gentlemen assert it has been, in the mittee of twenty-four, one member from each State. [The following gentlemen composed the committee on the part of the House of Representatives, viz.

Mr. THOMAS, of Louisiana, Mr. ANDERSON, of Maine, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr ADAMS, Mr. BURGES, Mr. HUNTINGTON, Mr. HUNT, Mr. CAMBRELENG, Mr. L. CONDICT, Mr. MUHLENBERG, Mr. MILLIGAN, Mr. HOWARD, Mr. McCoy, of Virginia, Mr. HALL, of North Carolina, Mr. DRAYTON, Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, Mr. WICKLIFFE, Mr. BELL, Mr. VANCE, Mr. BOON, Mr. PLUMMER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. ASHLEY.]

CHICKASAW TREATY.

Mr. EVERETT's resolution on the subject of the Chickasaw treaty again coming up for consideration,

newspapers, and had there been refuted and put to rest, it by no means followed that it was not a fit subject of investigation here, and at this time, for he could assure the honorable gentlemen that party newspapers, in party times, was the worse possible authority which could be adduced on this floor.

The gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. POLK,] who spoke the other day, had unfortunately left the House in utter ignorance whether he was opposed to the adoption of the resolution or not. He attended minutely to the observations of that gentleman, but had been unable, at last, to ascertain whether he was willing that an inquiry should be instituted, or whether he wished that no further steps should be taken on the subject. For what purpose had that gentleman addressed the House? Had he controMr. EVANS, of Maine, rose, and said he should not be verted any of the facts stated by the gentleman who offerdeterred by any thing which had been said yesterday by ed the resolution? Had the gentleman from Alabama the honorable gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. CLAY,] from done so? He [Mr. E.] thought not. But they had expressing fully, and he hoped clearly, his views of the gone into various explanations of facts which could not be subject under discussion; nor from declaring those opi- denied. Now, what was the object of these explanations? nions which, in his own judgment, the facts that have been submitted to the House authorized. That gentleman had severely tasked his ingenuity, to see how far he could go, keeping within the bounds prescribed by the rules of the House, and without utterly violating the limits of that courtesy which was due from one gentleman to another, in extending his denunciation of those who should vote for the adoption of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Was it to resist inquiry? or was it to send forth these explanations to the world before the inquiry was instituted, to prepare the public mind for the development of these transactions? It had been made a matter of complaint against the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT,] that he had entered into a detail of circumstances connectwith the treaties of 1818 and 1830, and the several leases executed under these treaties. How could he do otherwise? Consider how the resolution had been introduced[Mr. CLAY denied that he had denounced any one who how it had been received. The gentleman from Massamight think proper to vote in favor of the resolution; his chusetts had thought it his duty to present this resolution to remarks had been confined to those who had spoken on the House. Did he accompany it with explanations? Did the subject--to the opinions they had expressed, and to he send the facts connected with that resolution to the the course they had pursued.] world? No. He simply presented it to the House; and

Mr. EVANS resumed. He had understood the gentle- when the vote upon its adoption was about to be taken, man from Alabama, in referring to the motives and feel- three gentlemen from Tennessee successively rose from ings which had, in former instances, influenced the votes their seats to oppose it. The gentleman from Massachu of members of that House, (according to the opinion of setts assented that it should be laid on the table till he that gentleman,) as asserting or inferring that similar could obtain such further information as would enable motives must actuate them in voting on the present occa- him to decide whether the matter was worthy of investision; that the operation of a similar feeling was now going gation or called for a further procedure. On a subseon in the House; he had understood this imputation to quent day, he brought forward a modification of his former extend to all who should now vote in favor of this resolu- resolution, so framed as to obviate some of the objections tion. He [Mr. E.] wished to impeach the motives of no which had been urged. Was it not due to himself and to man in that House--he would not do so; and as it seemed that House to give the reason for having so modified it? offensive to gentlemen, that members of that House, in to explain the object he had in view? He did so. He introducing a measure, should declare they were influenc- stated the facts which it was necessary for him to state; ed by no improper motives, he would abstain from pro- facts which, in his [Mr. E.'s] opinion, had not yet been fessing what were his, in rising to make the observations denied, nor satisfactorily explained. Was it complained he was about to offer. He would remark that, at all times, that he did not state other facts? that he did not give those and upon all subjects, he should be governed by such mo- explanations which had since been given? Where could he

H. OF R.]

Chickasaw Treaty.

[FEB. 3, 1832,

have got them? Nowhere. The reason for the introduc- confirmed by the Senate? And if they were truly exetion of the resolution was that there were circumstances cuting the treaty, were we to be told it was an inchoate requiring explanation; and its sole object was to call forth instrument? He would dwell no longer on these points. such explanation. The very light it sought for was to What was the second explanation which had been given? show, in their true colors, certain transactions, which, en- Was it a denial of any circumstance which had been stated veloped as they were in obscurity, wore an unfavorable and relative to the lease of the reservation in the treaty of suspicious aspect. Gentlemen had attempted to explain 1818? No. The explanation was simply this: That the some of the circumstances of these transactions. He commissioners were, at this time, entirely ignorant of the would examine those explanations. What were they? transactions as to the lease agreed upon between two citiIt was said that the treaty, one article of which we wish zens of the United States and the Indians. If he had not to be laid before us, is still inchoate; that it had not yet as- misunderstood, the gentleman had stated that he was ausumed the shape of a perfected instrument, and might, thorized to say the commissioners had no knowledge of on a certain contingency, become void; and that when the matter. This, in itself, was a remarkable fact. What the late Secretary of War, near two years ago, had stated inference could be drawn from it? One only, that the lease that the treaty was concluded and ready for submission, he itself was not properly and lawfully entered into. If such had not used proper language. He [Mr. E.] did not pur- were not the case, if the lease was a legal and fair one, pose, at the present time, to undertake the defence of and consistent with the treaty, why this anxiety that the that individual's pretensions to any great philological at- commissioners should not know of it? For his own part, tainments; he believed that at any time he should feel he thought it not only proper, but necessary, that they himself incompetent for such a task; but, in the plain should have known it. How or where the treaty was statement of a fact, he did not see that there could be made, he did not know; but they had been told by a genany room for cavil arising from the language of the late tleman [Mr. BELL] that one great obstacle which had been Secretary of War, or any other person. What was the encountered in its negotiation, was this very reservation; fact stated? It was that two treaties had been con- that the Indians had entertained an opinion of its great cluded, and were ready for submission. There was no value, and were unwilling to part with it; and, furdistinction in the language, and probably none in the ther, that the negotiators had refused to allow them this mind of the Secretary, between these treaties. Both reservation, till they agreed it should be leased to citizens were ready, if cither was.. One was submitted, the other of the United States. And yet it was said these commiswas not, for the consideration of the Senate. The ex- sioners knew nothing of the lease, although it was actually Secretary was undoubtedly correct in the fact; both made on the very day of signing the treaty, and one of were concluded and were ready for the action of the the witnesses to that treaty was a party to it, and deeply other branch of Congress, and ought to have been sub- interested in it. This was all extraordinary enough, but mitted. What was the explanation which had been the gentleman had stated that such was the fact, and he offered as a reason why one of them was not? Because, [Mr. E.] presumed it was so. But, granting the ignorance forsooth, that treaty contained a proviso that in a certain of the commissioners on the subject, did it not look like event the treaty should be null and void! What was this a collision between the lessors and lessees, to take advanproviso? That if no suitable lands should be found for the Chickasaws, west of the Mississippi, then the treaty between that tribe and the United States should fall to the ground. Did such a proviso as that render it unfit to be submitted to the Senate? In his view of the case, proviso or no proviso, it should have been submitted. If ratified, it would have been ratified with the proviso; and if the terms of that proviso were never complied with, the treaty itself could never go into operation.

tage of such ignorance? All these things might be capable of explanation; but if, when information was asked, which might explain them, an attempt was made to withhold it, what other inference could be drawn, but that there was something unfair in the transactions, something that would not bear scrutiny?

It was said, the gentleman from Massachusetts acted on suspicion; if so, why not furnish that information which might destroy his suspicion? There was another most exBut did the treaty contain nothing else but this proviso?traordinary fact to be noticed, which was, that the lessees Were there no other terms contained in it, as to which had executed a bond, engaging themselves to pay to the the consent of the Senate was necessary? If the treaty Indians 20,000 dollars if the United States should refuse had been submitted, as it should have been, to that body, to ratify the treaty. He wished for some additional light as a branch of the treaty-making power, the terms of the on this subject also. Was it usual, when a treaty was ne

proviso, as well as the other terms of the treaty, would gotiated between the United States and another Power, have undergone consideration; and if the treaty had been for third parties, mere by-standers, to step in, and enter ratified, that proviso would have been ratified also. The into heavy bonds for the performance of the stipulations gentleman [Mr. BELL] had likewise undertaken to explain on the part of this Government? He did not know that the meaning of the President, when he told the House such was the fact in the present instance, but he wished to that these treaties were "in the course of execution;" know. It had been so stated, and had not yet been deand told the House that it meant no more than that the nied or explained. The next explanation of the honoraChickasaws were exploring the country west of the Mis-ble member from Tennessee was, that the lands were not sissippi in search of a suitable tract of land for their set- so valuable as was expected, and as they had been repretlement. He [Mr. E.] bad thought that, according to the sented. He did not care if they were worth nothing. views of the gentleman to which he had just alluded, if The question at issue had nothing to do with the value such a tract was not found, the treaty was to be a nullity. of the lands. It was as to the manner in which they had Were they then to be told that, whilst these Indians were been acquired by the lessees, and the motives those perlooking round to see if this was to be a treaty or no treaty, sons had in being parties to that instrument. To say they the treaty was actually in the course of execution? Was had made a bad bargain, did not prove that they had made there any article in the treaty itself requiring this examin-a fair one. If they had not derived so great advantages as ation? Mr. POLK nodded an affirmative.] A gentle- they expected, so much the worse for them, though he man opposite said there was. Well, then, if the treaty [Mr. E.] could not sympathize very deeply in their sorcontained such an article, and these Chickasaws, in thus row for their disappointment. He had yet to learn that exploring the country, were fulfilling a part of the pro- the justness of motives, or the propriety of actions, devisions of the treaty--were performing an act which grew pended on success. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. entirely out of those provisions, were they not, he would CLAY] had referred them to the fifth article of the same ask, carrying into execution a treaty which had not been treaty, by which a reservation of two miles square was

FEB. 3, 1832.]

Chickasaw Treaty.

[H. of R.

But

sold for five hundred dollars, and had argued that if that to that House than it was to the individuals implicated in was a fair price, then 2,000 dollars was also a fair price those transactions, which, according to the admission of for a tract four miles square. He had but one objection to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL,] himself, had this plan of the gentleman, to make one article the com- a very suspicious appearance. The gentleman from Alapurgator of another. It was possible that article, like- bama [Mr. CLAY] had complained of mutilated facts, and wise, required investigation; for aught they knew, the partial information, and that the whole truth was not becompurgator needed compurgation. It was said that the fore the House; and yet the gentleman was opposed to fourth article of the treaty of 1818 had been misunder- this call, the object of which was to procure the necessastood; that that article gave a discretionary power to the ry information. It was said that no specific complaint-lessors; and that the lease which had been made was a nothing in the nature of an impeachment--had been put suitable and proper lease, upon full and proper consider- forth. How could we pursue such a course, if the requiations; and it had been asked what fact there was to show site knowledge, as to facts, was kept back and denied? a forfeiture on the part of the lessees. He would ex- All they asked was for the means which would either reamine this. If, as contended for, the lease executed under move their suspicions, or enable them to put forth a spethe treaty of 1818 was a proper and substantial lease; and cific complaint. Reference had been made to certain if no fact had occurred whereby it was forfeited, whence transactions in the last and preceding sessions of Conthe necessity for any article whatever, respecting it, in gress, with regard to the passage of the bill for the remothe treaty of 1830? If, of itself, it was a sufficient and val of the Indians, for the purpose of showing an inconvalid title to the land obtained for a fair consideration, sistency in the conduct of those who had been in favor of whence the inducement for the lessees to pay 2,000 the act of 1826, but were opposed to that of 1830. Was dollars twelve years afterwards, under the provisions of a it possible that gentlemen had forgot what were the obnew treaty? Unless their title under this lease needed jections to the latter act? Did they not know that the protection, why take out a new deed, reciting the article circumstances which gave rise to these objections did not of the new treaty, and have it placed on record? Would exist in 1826? The opposition offered was not to the they have acted thus, if they had felt themselves justly removal of such Indians as were willing to go; with this and legally entitled to the lands under the lease of 1818? condition, that they should be left at liberty to exercise Surely not, unless they are governed by motives different their own free will, and that, until they chose to remove, from those which usually influence men in their dealings. they should continue under the protection of the PresiIn the article of the treaty of 1830, for which we call, dent of the United States, who should have been willing it is said that reference is made to the original lease under to appropriate any sum for the purposes of the act. the treaty of 1818, and a new stipulation is entered into for did not the President, at that time, tell Congress that a perfecting and making valid the title of the lessees, upon new era had arisen as to Indian affairs; that the tribes had payment by them of the sum of 2,000 dollars. That the called on the United States for the fulfilment of its agreemoney was paid-a new lease executed, and the lessees ments with them; that he had told them he had no power have come into possession under it. How was this brought to afford them the protection they asked, and that they about, and where the necessity for it? Gentlemen had must come under the authority of the States? Certainly said, that when this new treaty was about to be negotiat- he did. What, then, was the opposition offered to the ed, the Indians, finding they had not got any thing from act? Did he not offer amendment after amendment, prothe reservation under the former treaty, naturally recur-viding for the fulfilment of treaties existing between this red to their claims on the land. If these claims had been Government and the Indians? And did we not declare made against the United States, it would have been well our entire readiness to pass the bill if such amendments enough, and a matter for the commissioners and the In- were adopted? The act, as far as it went, was well dians to treat about. But who authorized the commissioners enough; and it was only opposed because it did not conto treat with them, on the behalf of these lessees, for their tain the provisions rendered necessary by the new era in interest? If the original lease was valid and substantial, our relations with the Indians. Was this the case in 1826? why did not these lessees rest upon their title, and turn the Indians round to the United States? But no! strange to say, it seems they were quite willing, on their part, to accede to these terms, and to pay 2,000 dollars to make good a title which gentlemen contend was good already. The next explanation which had been offered to do away with any impression of unfairness, so far as regards the Second Auditor, was, that he had no interest in the lease, and was merely nominally concerned. It did not matter whether it was that individual or any other who was concerned in the transaction. If he permitted his name to be used, and placed on the record, and any thing connected with the transaction was found to be illegal or unjust, or fraudulent, he would be held to that degree of responsibility which the offence might merit.

No. They had, at that time, no complaints from the Indians of treaties violated and compacts broken. They did not then come to that House with their parchments bearing our signature, and memorials asking the fulfil ment of our plighted faith. Nor did the States then extend their jurisdiction over them. They were then under the shield of the constitution. Alas! that shield had been broken! In this view, he thought the conduct of gentlemen in 1826 perfectly consistent with their conduct in 1830. But it had been complained, that a memorial on this subject was introduced at a very late period of the last session, with a view of renewing the discussion on Indian rights or Indian wrongs. Whose fault was it, if any fault existed, that the subject had not been taken up earlier? It was not for the want of petitions, praying [Mr. BELL rose to explain a statement he had made that it might be taken under consideration of the House. on a former day. He understood that, at the time the Day after day, petitions and memorials had been presentlease was signed there, the Second Auditor had no inte- ed, from various parts of the Union, and from the Indians rest in it. On reference to the journals of the commis- themselves, praying and beseeching the action of the House sioners, however, he found that the lease was contracted on the subject. What had been done with them? They by Mr. Currin, for himself, and for Mr. Lewis, as his at- had been sent to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and torney. Finding afterwards that it was not worth the there they were at the present moment. No notice had attention of two persons, Mr. Currin had taken the whole been taken of them-no report made. Seeing, then, that into his own hands.] there was no prospect or hope that the committee to which

Mr. EVANS resumed. The transactions in question the subject had been referred, would act upon it, they might be perfectly honest and fair, as to all the parties had felt themselves called on to institute an inquiry, at the concerned. All he desired was to know if they were so. time and in the manner they did. It was said that no hope He thought inquiry into the subject was not more due could have been entertained that any good would result

H. OF R.]

Chickasaw Treaty.

[FEB. 3, 1832.

from an inquiry thus instituted. When gentlemen on that tioned? How could two treaties, and two leases, invest floor had a duty to perform, they did it according to their the land of this reservation either in the Indians or the lesown judgment; but if that House could not, or would not, sees? It was said that these treaties had not been submitact upon a proposition, was the member making it to be ted to the Senate, therefore had not been acted upon; charged, on that ground, with unfair motives or election- and that it would be disrespectful to the President to call neering purposes? Gentlemen would judge of such an for inquiry before we knew his views with regard to them. imputation according to their own principles; but, in his All they knew was, that he had told them they were "in view, it was most unwarrantable and unjust. 1 come now, course of execution." As to their not being submitsaid Mr. E., to the objections which have been made to ted, it was possible they never might be. And then, what this resolution; and one is, that it would invade the treaty- was the doctrine for which gentlemen contend, and where making power vested by the constitution in the other would it lead? Why, this. That the President, or those branch of the Legislature. What was the jurisdiction of employed by him, might invest the public lands in whom the Senate in this matter? It was, to advise the President they thought proper; that the favored persons might realas to the propriety or impropriety of adopting any treaty ize all the profits such investment produced; and yet that negotiated betwixt the United States and another Power. House, and the people of the United States, had no right Would a call for information as to a certain article of a to inquire what had become of the public domain, merely treaty prevent them from giving their advice as to that because the treaty by which the land had been perpetuattreaty? Was it supposed they would say the House of ed had never been submitted to the Senate. Did not such Representatives have called for such an article, therefore a doctrine provide a plan by which any fraudulent treaty we cannot act on this treaty-our dignity is compromised, might be locked up, and never be permitted to see the light? and our power invaded! If that House were to adopt a And yet that all the private benefits it conferred might be resolution, or pass a law, which would affect or prevent fully enjoyed by the corrupt agents without detection? the execution of a treaty, then, indeed, such a complaint The argument of the gentleman on this point went that might be made; but nothing of the kind was done by a length, or none. He would state a case: he did not say mere call for inquiry. Having procured the information that the case really existed, but he would assume it so, for which we want, if we propose any course of legislative the sake of illustration. Suppose, then, the treaty of action, interfering with the trust in question, the objec-1830 was a fraudulent treaty; that it had been the object tion may be entitled to some weight; at present it is pre- of the commissioners who negotiated it to convey to the mature. The constitution said that the President and the Second Auditor, or to any other person, a valuable inteSenate should be invested with the power of making trea- rest in the land reserved; that such person had entered ties; but it did not say that that House and the country into possession, and had received the benefits accruing should be deprived of such information on the subject of from such fraudulent investment; would gentlemen assert any treaty, as they thought necessary, and the furnishing that, because that treaty had never been submitted to the of which would not prevent the execution of that treaty. Senate, that House had nothing to do with it? Had that It seemed now to be conceded that these treaties with the House nothing to do with the interests and honor of the Indians were to be considered in the same light as those country, and its public officers? Had it nothing to do with negotiated with foreign Powers. Two years ago, two the disposal of the public domain? No gentleman, he was short years only, it had been argued that they were not sure, would answer these questions in the negative. treaties, but mere compacts, agreements; that they were, Notwithstanding what had been said as to the sympathy in fact, matters of legislation. The chairman of the Com- of members for those tribes which were most remote from mittee on Indian Affairs, at that time, had expressed him- their own section of country, he hoped, from whatever self after this manner: "That though the Government of quarter gentlemen came, they would feel a wish that justhe United States had a perfect right to control Indian af- tice should be done both to their country and to the Infairs as they pleased, yet policy had directed that it was dians. It was said by the gentleman from Alabama that prudent never to do any thing touching their territory, "the philanthropists" alluded to were never found huntwithout procuring their consent; and that we should ap- ing up treaties which had been negotiated with Indians pear to do it only in virtue of that consent, though, in by their own friends, and in their own sections. Did the truth, their consent was wholly iminaterial." From this gentleman know of any complaints from those tribes? "policy" the gentleman traced the custom which had pre- When he should hear any of the Eastern and Western vailed from the origin of the Government, of making trea- tribes of Indians complaining of unjust or violated treaties, ties with the Indian tribes; and as the policy was no longer and demanding a recompense for their wrongs, and find necessary, we being strong enough to attain our objects us resisting their rights and stifling their injuries, he might in another mode, treaties were now to be viewed in their have some ground for his imputation-not till then. If true light. Such was the doctrine then. he could put his finger upon any single transaction with

Now, it was contended that our agreements with them other tribes, which could afford a just ground for comwere actually treaties, subject to the same formalities and plaint against the United States, or any State, let him do rules of construction as treaties with foreign Powers, and so, and lie [Mr. E.] would sustain a motion for the most amthat by interfering, even by the call for a single article, we ple inquiry into the matter. Mr. E. concluded by observwere invading the treaty-making power. It had formerlying that he hoped the House would not be led away by been argued that the right to make these arrangements the extended arguments of the gentleman from Alabama, with the Indians was only a part of the authority given to from the proper subject of consideration. The territory Congress by the constitution to regulate Indian affairs. which formerly belonged to the Chickasaws, but which Now, it was said that it did not grow out of that authori- had been ceded by them to the United States, had passed ty, but was a branch of the treaty-making power itself. into the hands of private citizens, without the assent of It had been said, in the report made by the Committee on Congress, or either branch of it. He wished to know in Indian Affairs, to which he had adverted, that if it were what way this had happened. The transactions by which necessary, for the purpose of conciliating the Indian tribes, it was effected might possibly be (as he before said) fair permanently to invest them in the possession of the lands enough; but he thought the facts themselves called for inthey occupied, it must be done, not by the treaty-making quiry. If it should be shown that nothing unfair had tranpower, but by the Congress of the United States, who spired, he should be the first to express his conviction that alone have the power of making such donations of the his present suspicions were groundless; if, on the contrary, public lands. if this doctrine was correct and constitu- it should be found that fraud or collision had actually tional, how could the transaction in question be sanc- taken place, he hoped the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4.

CHICKASAW TREATY.

The resolution of Mr. EVERETT, calling for a certain article in the treaty made in 1830 with the Chickasaw Indians, came up for consideration.

[H. of R.

been engaged in this speculation, if they were even sustained and supported by the influence of the commissioners who had negotiated this treaty.

Mr. J. said, with the indulgence of the House, he would proceed, as briefly as he could, to submit to their consideration the views he now entertained, and which had been long since furnished his constituents, in relation to the treaties and contracts of 1818 and 1830.

The fourth article of the treaty of 1818 was in the following words: "The commissioners agree, on the further and particular application of the chiefs, and for the benefit of the poor and warriors of said nation, that a tract of land containing four miles square, to include a salt lick, or Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennesee, said he considered the springs, on or near the river Sandy, a branch of the Tendebate which had arisen on this resolution, as ill-timed, nessee river, and within the land hereby ceded, be reservand before an improper tribunal; and for which he felt ed, and to be laid off in a square or oblong, so as to himself in no way responsible. That he intended to sub-include the best timber, at the option of their beloved mit to the proper tribunal, (the Senate,) the questions chiefs, Levi Colbert and Major James Brown, or either of which have been agitated before this House, arising under them, who are hereby made agents and trustees for the the treaties and contracts of 1818 and 1830; and that he nation, to lease the said salt lick, or springs, on the followshould long since have submitted them to the considera-ing express conditions, viz. For the benefit of the resertion of this House, if he had believed the House could vation, as before recited, the trustees or agents are bound properly have taken cognizance of them. Shortly after to lease said reservation to some citizen or citizens of the the execution of the treaty of 1830, at Franklin, the United States, for a reasonable quantity of salt, to be paid contract made under the treaty of 1818, between the annually to said nation, for the use thereof; and that, from trustees of the Indians and William B. Lewis, and the and after two years after the ratification of this treaty, no contract between the Indians and William B. Lewis and salt made at the works to be erected on this reservation Robert P. Currin, under the treaty of 1850, were regis. shall be sold within the limits of the same for a higher tered in the county of Humphreys, and possession of the price than one dollar per bushel of fifty pounds weight; reservation demanded by Lewis and Currin, or some agent on failure of which, the lease shall be forfeited, and the of theirs, of the citizens residing on it, and suits threatened reservation revert to the United States." in the event of refusal. It was this state of things that had It was upon this article, and in pursuance of it, the coninduced some of the citizens of Humphreys, living on the tract of 1818 was intended to have been made. Whether reserve, to visit him at his own residence, near one hun- the reservation would be void in consequence of the lease dred miles distance, to ask his advice and counsel as to the having been executed prior to the ratification of the treaty proper course they should pursue to defend themselves by the Senate of the United States, or whether the conagainst the claims of Lewis and Currin. The Chickasaw tract would be void in consequence of its not strictly purtreaty of 1830 not having been published, it was impossi-suing the conditions in the fourth article, as the gentleman ble for him to give any satisfactory opinion on the subject from Massachusetts thinks, are questions which I do not to them; he had, however, advised them to continue in think need now be decided. The contract of 1818 exthe possession of their farms, and upon no terms to have pressly provides: "It is further covenanted and agreed, any connexion with the titles of Lewis and Currin, and by and between the parties to this agreement, in case the stated to them, as his opinion, that if the Chickasaw treaty salt water on this reservation and above recited premises, contained any provisions for the confirmation of their upon a fair experiment being made, shall be found not to claims, the same would not be ratified by the Government. be of quality and quantity sufficient to justify the working Very shortly after his arrival at the city, at the com- thereof, then, and in that case, the article of agreement mencement of the present session of Congress, he had to be void, and of no effect." A fair experiment has called upon the Executive for the purpose of examining been made, and it has been ascertained, beyond dispute, the treaty, and it was submitted to his inspection and ex-that salt water cannot be procured on the reservation; amination, as it had been for others; and that he had since consequently, whatever interest the lessee may have had taken occasion to make known to the President the inte- under the contract of 1818, he could have had none at rests, views, and wishes of his constituents. And he the time of the execution of the treaty in 1830: so that inferred, from the conversation with the President, and the question is now presented to the House, whether felt himself justified in so saying to the House, that the the land within the limits of the reservation, upon the failarticle in the treaty, to which so much exception had been ure to get salt water, vested in the United States, or taken by the honorable member from Massachusetts, did whether the reservation remained good and valid to the not meet with the approbation of the President. But Chickasaw Indians, and is not embarrassed by any consiwhether the President would consider it his duty to reject derations growing out of the lease of 1818. the treaty which contained the exceptionable article, and The reservation allowed in the fourth article of the treaty order a new treaty to be negotiated, or whether he would was based upon the idea that salt water could be procured submit the treaty, as it stood, to the consideration of the within the limits of the reservation. Upon any other Senate, was unknown to him. Under the belief, however, belief, the reservation would not have been insisted on by that the Senate was the proper tribunal for deciding the the Chickasaws, or allowed by the commissioners of the questions in relation to this treaty, he, and his colleague United States. A full, fair, and valuable consideration who sits near him, [Mr. FITZGERALD,] had determined to was agreed to be paid them for their interest or right of prepare a memorial, in behalf of their constituents, to the occupancy in that whole section of country, except the Senate, submitting to that body the very questions which valuable interests they believed they had in the salt mines; had incidentally arisen on the discussion of the present and the conditions in the article, that they should lease to resolution; and that he would assure the House that the a citizen of the United States, for a reasonable quantity of interests of the occupants on that reservation, however salt, to be annually paid, and that salt should not be sold humble their situation might be in life, would be attended for a price exceeding one dollar, are predicated upon the to by himself and his colleague, here or elsewhere, against same idea, and are but modifications of the implied condithe united influence of the wealthy individuals who had tion that salt water was to be obtained, "upon failure of