H. OF R.] Chickasaw Treaty. [FEB. 4, 1832. which the lease shall be forfeited, and the reservation nagement and control of their affairs, or to whom the revert to the United States." It surely cannot be suc- Indians in some way felt themselves under obligations to cessfully contended that it was the intention of the ne-serve; and the considerations that led to the granting of gotiators of the treaty of 1818, that the interest of the reservations is usually expressed upon the face of the Chickasaws in the reservation was to be made dependent treaty. So far as I am informed, this is the only instance upon the good will or proper conduct of any citizen of in which a citizen of the United States has been permitted the United States to whom the same might be leased, and to acquire Indian lands, disconnected with some such conat the same time compel the lease to be made to some of our siderations as I have above mentioned. citizens; that the reservation should be made to cease, with- And, sir, I must acknowledge I see no reason or proout any misconduct on the part of the Chickasaws, or in priety in the commissioners of the United States extendconsequence of the improper conduct of our own citizens. ing such a privilege to those gentlemen, to the exclusion They were compelled to lease it, and for annual payments of other citizens of the country, equally meritorious, and in salt; and I presume a lease for any other consideration more in need of such liberality. By way of apology for than that of salt would have been void; and this is the this indulgence, I see it stated in the contract of 1830, view which the parties to the contract of 1830 seem to that these individuals had expended large sums of money have taken of this matter; for they carefully provide, in in their efforts to procure salt water, three or four thou addition to the two thousand dollars, for the payment of sand dollars; and the new contract is intended to be a sort "four bushels of salt annually." And this idea is further of indemnity for their losses. If this fact be true, which, illustrated by the conduct of the parties to the last con- by the bye, I do not believe, I do not see upon what prin tract. If they had considered that, under the fourth article ciple of either law or equity the reservation should be of the treaty of 1818, the reservation was still continued applied to that purpose; if it belonged to the Chickasaw to the Chickasaws, it would have followed, as a conse- Indians, it was manifestly improper that their property quence, that Colbert and Brown, the trustees, would have should be applied to the indemnification of the lessees had the right to renew the lease, and change the terms of under the contract of 1818, or that they should have been the contract made by them in 1818, and application would induced to part with their property at a diminished price have been made to them for that purpose; but, instead of in consideration of such losses. The contract of 1818 that, notwithstanding the presence of Colbert and Brown was made by Major Lewis upon speculation, and the at Franklin, the contract of 1830 is made, and signed by losses resulting from any experiments to effect it, should all the Indians who had signed the treaty, and then sanc- have been placed to the account of the speculator. tioned by the commissioners of the United States, demonstrating that the parties interested in the contract believed that a new lease and a new sanction of the commissioners of the United States was necessary to render valid their claim. But, sir, the most aggravating circumstance attending Before the treaty of 1818, the right of soil belonged to this transaction, in my opinion, is this, that, by virtue of the United States-the right of occupancy or possession, this private agreement, so managed and sanctioned, as I to the Indians. The United States were willing, when have before explained, by the commissioners, many citipurchasing of them their right to that section of the coun-zens of the State of Tennessee, my constituents, the neightry, to permit them further to enjoy their right in the bors and political friends of one of the commissioners, reservation, to procure, if possible, so valuable an article are subjected to, and no doubt will be turned out of their for the use of the nation; but, for the convenience and humble cottages and quiet homes, if this article shall ever advantage of the citizens residing in the adjacent country, be sanctioned by the executive authorities of this nation, the actual occupancy of the reservation by them was pro-and the proceeds of their industry and labor be applied to hibited; and for the same purpose was the price of salt the use of Major Lewis, a former brother-in-law of the limited to one dollar. Whenever the use for which this commissioner, or to Mr. Currin, who, I understand, is the reservation was made ceases, the right ceases also. If partner in trade of another brother-in-law of the same I am correct in this view of the subject, and it seems to commissioner. me to have been the true intent and meaning of the parties, it follows that the reservation reverted to the United States upon the failure to get salt, and that the land within the limits of the reservation was not a proper subject for negotiation, in the treaty of Franklin, in 1830. If it belonged to the United States, as I think indisputa ble, then the land was sold to Messrs. Lewis and Currin, and the consideration given to the Indians. I will not, sir, impute improper motives to the conduct of gentlemen who stand so high in this nation as the commissioners who negotiated this treaty, nor to the gentlemen who have been concerned in this attempted speculation upon my constituents; but, sir, if the facts be as I have stated them, and as I understand them to be, a shade is cast over the transaction that requires explanation to the country at their hands. It has been stated by my colleague, [Mr. BELL,] as a defence of Major Lewis, and upon his authority, that he has no interest at this time in the contract of 1830. This seems to be casting the whole odium of this transaction, if there be any attached to it, upon Mr. Currin. [Here Mr. BELL asked leave to explain, and said that his colleague was mistaken, if he supposed that, by any remarks he had made, the blame of this transaction was to be cast from Mr. Lewis to Mr. Currin, or that censure could be properly attributed to either.] But, sir, if I am mistaken in the proper construction to be given to the fourth article of the treaty, and the reservation continuing in the Indians was a proper subject for negotiation, then the purchase should have been made for the use and benefit of the United States, and not for any individual or company whatever. The permission given by the commissioners of the United States to William B. Lewis and Robert P. Currin, to purchase, or rather the sanction given by them to the purchase when made, even if it had been for a full and valuable consideration, is in direct hostility to what I have always understood to have been the settled policy of this Government from its organization to the present time, and ought not, in my opinion, and I trust will not receive the sanction of any department| Mr. JOHNSON proceeded, and said, I assure my colof this Government. I am aware, sir, that it is not un-league, sir, that I did not intend to attribute any such mousual, in our Indian treaties, for reservations to be allowed tive or wish to him, or infer it from any thing said by him; to the citizens of the United States, and entirely concur in the opinion expressed by my colleague [Mr. BELL] as to the impolicy of permitting them in any case; but so far as my information extends upon this subject, they have heretofore only been allowed to white men residing in the nation, or to citizens in some way connected with the ma but intended simply to state that the effect of Major Lewis's denial was to cast the odium of the transaction, if any belonged to it, upon Mr. Currin, whom I know to be a gentleman of high character and standing in Tennessee, and against whom I never heard a syllable until after his connexion with Major Lewis in this speculation. FEB. 4, 1832.] Chickasaw Treaty. [H. or R. I shall not deny the statement of Major Lewis. I know If it was competent for this House to determine upon the not what their situation may be, subsequent to the making validity of the treaty, or to rescind the contracts, or settle of this treaty, nor does it make any difference with me the rights of parties claiming under them, I should not whether one or both are now interested in this property: hesitate to give my assent to the proposition submitted to the effect will be the same upon my constituents. But, the House; or, if the gentleman from Massachusetts insir, that the House may understand the nature of this tended to proceed against the officers who negotiated this transaction, and the situation of these gentlemen when treaty, or the Second Auditor, for the part taken by him the treaty of 1830 was negotiated, I shall send to the Chair a paper which I desire may be read by the Clerk for the information of the House. It is a paper which has been sent me by my constituents, and I have no doubt is a copy of the contract of 1830, as registered in Humphreys county. in the purchase, I should not withhold my assent to a call for any information necessary to effect such an object; and until the gentleman from Massachusetts shall submit his proposition in some shape calling for the direct action of this House, I shall not yield my assent to his call upon the Executive for further information on this subject. I [The Clerk read the contract, purporting to have been am convinced, sir, that further information need not be signed Wm. B. Lewis, by his agent and attorney in fact, given the honorable member to enable him to decide what Robert P. Currin, and by twenty Indians; whereby the is the proper course to be taken upon this subject. lease of 1818 was continued to Lewis and Currin for one It is admitted that the treaty has not yet been complethundred and ninety-nine years, for the salt lick reserva- ed; that it is conditional; and that it has not yet any obli tion; and, in the place of seven hundred and fifty bushels gatory force on the Indians. Would it not be an improof salt, to be paid annually, in the original lease, two thou- per interference on the part of this House with the duties sand dollars is to be paid, five hundred dollars in cash, of other departments of the Government, which are enfive hundred dollars on the 1st of October, 1831, and one trusted, by the constitution, with the power to make treathousand dollars on the 1st of October, 1832; and likewise ties? For aught gentlemen know, the very article to to pay annually four bushels of salt, or the value thereof, as they and the nation may agree to and direct.] From this contract, it appears that Major Lewis is the only individual bound to the Indians, although, upon the face of it, it purports to be for the joint benefit of himself and Currin. Repeated references have been made to me in the course of this debate, as to the value of the land in the reserve. I do not know, sir, that I have such a knowledge of the precise situation of the land, or the quality of so large a tract, as to enable me to form a correct estimate of its value. I have no doubt, however, from the information I have, that it is worth at least five times as much as the sum stipulated in the contract. I think it probable, when the improvements are taken into the estimate, it would be, a speculation even at that price. which so much exception has been taken, may be the subject of further negotiation at this very time. The newspapers tell us that the commissioners who negotiated this treaty have been very lately among the Chickasaw Indians, probably endeavoring to adjust, finally, the stipu lations in this very treaty. Before any application is made to the Executive on this subject, it seems to me proper to wait until the treaty shall be completed, and until the approbation of the Executive is given to it. The constitution has confided all such duties to the Executive, and neither I, nor my constituents who are interested on this subject, have any apprehension but that those duties will be discharged faithfully and fearlessly, and to the satisfaction of this House and the country. Mr. PENDLETON, of New York, said that this debate had already assumed an extent not warranted by the resoThe whole matter, then, sir, comes to this natural re-lution of the gentleman from Massachusetts. There is, sult, that, at the time of the treaty in 1830, the land in the said Mr. P., a clear distinction between the character of limits of the reservation belonged either to the United the transaction, as it may be hereafter developed, and the States or to the Chickasaw Indians. If to the former, the nature of the inquiry; the one may be perfectly innocent, commissioners had no right to sanction the transfer of it and the other may be undeniably proper. The absolute to Lewis and Currin; if to the latter, it was the duty of supposition upon either side, of innocence or guilt, prethe commissioners, as I humbly conceive, to have extin- cludes the notion of inquiry, because it precludes the noguished the Indian title for the benefit of the United tion of doubt. The true question is, are the circumStates, especially when the same could have been done stances disclosed so suspicious as to render an explanation for the inadequate price of two thousand dollars, instead indispensably necessary? The gentleman from Massachuof lending their authority or influence, or in any way setts has been subjected to some criticisms, which are, in sanctioning the application of this property to individual my judgment, extremely inapplicable. I desire to know uses or purposes, or the application of it to the satisfac- how any case can be shown to require the notice of this tion of imaginary expenditures, for which the United House, unless those parts of it which are suspicious be States or the Chickasaw Indians were in no way respon- particularly stated. sible. In submitting to the House the views I entertain of this subject, I trust I have satisfactorily answered the several inquiries made of me by the gentlemen who have debated this question. A few words, sir, as to the resolution itself, and I shall not further trespass upon the time and attention of this House. What are these circumstances? We find in an article of a public treaty a reservation of land made for a charitable purpose; the object of this charity is to provide for the poor and the warriors of the Chickasaws. The plan of this charity suggests the idea of its being perpetual; the fund from which it arises is imperishable; the parties to it are aggregate corporations, and it contains a continuing provision in the shape of a perpetual rent. To this object, which is highly meritorious, the United States have given their consent. The resolution proposes to ask of the President to send to this House that portion of the treaty which relates to this reservation, together with the contracts which have After the lapse of a few years, we find other provisions been so often referred to in this debate. There has been suggested, by which the original plan is very materially no satisfactory reason given, to my mind, for making this changed. The amount of the provision is reduced to a call. It is evidently not for any information contained in mere nominal rent; for nobody will contend that four the documents which the gentleman from Massachusetts bushels of salt can constitute a provision for the poor and seeks. The treaty has been submitted to his examina- the warriors of a whole tribe, and the provision has ceased tion, as well as that of the gentleman from Connecticut; to be continuous. and the contracts are not documents belonging to the de- It has thus lost its most essential feature in this expopartment, and have been by me submitted to the House. sure of the capital to all the caprice of barbarian improviVOL. VIII.-110 H. OF R.] Chickasaw Treaty. [FEB. 4, 1832. dence. Here, then, the first suspicion is suggested, by The gentleman from Alabama is of opinion that the the discrepancy between the original plan and the pre-adoption of the resolution will interfere with the prerogasent arrangement. It is manifest that the original pur- tives of the Senate. The article of the treaty in question poses of the treaty cannot be effected by the means is incidental merely to the inquiry, and, until it be seen, proposed now to be adopted. The next suspicious circum- its contents cannot be certainly known. I see nothing in stance arises from the precipitate execution of the lease; the proposed call which can at all interfere with the action it may have preceded the treaty-it certainly was execut- of the Senate upon the treaty when it shall be laid before ed on the same day; it followed hard upon: this, of itself, them. I cannot believe that the House will be astute to unavoidably suggests the idea of preconcert. The question lay hold of technical objections which may impede the is, whether this be not a mere cover, an indirect contract adoption of the resolution; and I indulge the hope that it for Indian land, an arrangement intended for the benefit will be adopted. of particular lessees, under the specious pretext of a permanent charity. Mr. CLAYTON, of Georgia, said the discussion of this resolution has taken a very extensive range; and I find that We have a law, Mr. Speaker, which seems to be pass- it is very much the practice of speakers to indulge in this ing very rapidly into oblivion, by which all contracts for course. It cannot be well accounted for upon any other Indian lands are void, and, except at a public negotiation, principle than that the subjects in pursuit of which the to treat directly or indirectly for any Indian title is a mis- fancy is permitted to wander, and which do not belong to demeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. This law the question, are generally of much more interest than the is designed to attain two objects: one is, to protect from immediate object of debate, and, therefore, secure to the unequal contracts a very careless and improvident race of orator a more attentive listener. If I should indulge in men. It is designed to guard the Indian while he re- a similar digression, I hope I shall be excused. mains in the possession of his land, against the rapacity Mr. Speaker, the character of Congress suffers imand intrusion of the whites. The other object is, to pro- mensely throughout the country--whether true or false, it tect the interests of the United States, and to prevent the is not for me to say--under the idea that every thing which creation of particular estates in lands which are ultimately is brought before this body is not so much for the public destined for the public use. We have interposed the good as it is to serve a private purpose. I hope the House ceremony of a public act, and the vigilance of public offi- will not be offended if I tell them a little plain truth. There cers, to effect these objects, and to hold out an assurance prevails a notion--and I have no doubt you have all heard that all the transactions at an Indian treaty are what they it, in some shape or other--that when Congress meets, purport to be, fair and open. Now, the object of this in- some reformed officer or disappointed editor whispers quiry is to ascertain this very point-whether that result, into the ears of members that if they will look into the which the public interposition was specially designed to corner of such an office, or examine into such and such prevent, has not been, by the public interposition, the accounts, they will find something wrong, something very more effectually attained. The question is, whether the black, or which may be construed into it, that will tell forms of law have not been used to elude the law. Whe-well against the administration. Immediately a resoluther the prisoner has not effected his escape, disguised in tion is introduced to fish up the dreadful information; and the uniform of one of his guards. The gentleman from then, in the discussion of the subject, members consider South Carolina has expressed an opinion that this is a case the floor of Congress as a kind of hustings, from which for the ordinary tribunals of justice. It is a correct prin- they may address the people in the remotest corners of ciple that a common case should not receive the extraor- the Union, and abuse any character who may stand in their dinary action of the House. But the case is not common. way. Sheltered and protected by their privilege, and free, Our Indian relations constitute a distinct and peculiar sys- as they think, from all danger, they gravely vent their tem. This is not a case of meum and tuum between spleen against any political enemy who would impertiparties who are subject entirely to the same jurisdiction, nently differ from them in opinion, or, what is worse, who and governed by the same law. It is a case by itself, in appears to hold, or is likely to obtain, office, which they relation to which the Government of the United States is or their friends may want. And, Mr. Speaker, the furactuated by a principle of rigid and jealous exclusion. It ther off these enemies may be, the better, especially if is not proposed to interfere because there has been a pri- they should be ministers abroad, separated from the speakvate injury; neither is it necessary to put this case upon er, at the safe distance of an ocean three thousand miles the sole ground of an unequal or fallacious contract. If wide, resting perfectly secure under the old truth, that "any cur may smell to a dead lion." I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not pretend to say that this is true, but this is the notion prevailing among the people. We need not disguise the fact; we meet it every where. And Have the garb and the habiliments of the law been put you know, in this people's country, they must be permiton to deceive the law? We desire to know whether this be, ted to think as they please--at all events, they take that indeed, our son's coat or not. The gentleman from Ten- privilege, whether we wish it or not. So far as my own nessee has suggested to the House (I know not with what experience extends, since I have been here, I do not think view) that the parties have incurred great expense in cer- it true as to this branch of the Legislature; but I dare not tain investigations made with a view to discover salt. I say as much for the other. If it be true, it is extremely presume the intention was to lessen the effect originally degrading to the American Congress, and should be reproduced by the idea that the terms of this contract were medied as soon as possible. We owe it to our own sense so beneficial to the lessees as to suggest the notion of fraud. I am unable to say whether these investigations have been successful or not. Sir, there is nothing like perseverance. I am apt to believe that a saline spring will yet be discovered, (if it has not been discovered already,) to justify the sagacity of the original reservation; and though the poor and the warrior of the Chickasaws may not be the better for such a discovery, yet I hazard the prediction that their successors in the possession of this land, and the perception of its profits, will never be in so forlorn a condition as to want salt to their porridge. there be a contract at all, and that contract be indirect, be it never so equitable, it is void. The question is, has there been, by any indirection, an attempt here made to acquire title to Indian lands? of self-respect; we owe it to our country; and we owe it, in a very particular manner, to our reputation abroad, to break up a practice of so debasing a character. What must foreign nations think of an assembly that is continually, both in speeches and resolutions, basing its remarks and proceedings upon the suspicion that all its public functionaries--the higher the worse--are a set of faithless self-servers, unmindful of any thing but their own interest? I do not charge the present resolution with any such motive, but, in the argument of it, who is there in this House that entirely understands its object?--that FEB. 4, 1832.] Chickasaw Treaty. [H. OF R. knows what is to be done after we get the information? nate's privilege in relation to their exclusive control over Have we not heard, from various quarters and under di- treaties, but that the House does not consider compacts versified shapes, dark insinuations and mysterious inuen- and bargains made with the Indians as coming within the does, professed, however, to mean nothing, but, like an true intent and meaning of those treaties contemplated by effect sometimes produced on frightened animals, is cal- the constitution; and, therefore, the consideration of all culated to kill by the wind of the bullet? What is the pur- transactions with Indians within the territory of the United port of the resolution? If the parties implicated did not States belongs equally and alike to both branches of Conbelong to the Government, it would not excite one single gress. I flatter myself that I shall be able to establish the concern. It would be a matter of every day occurrence, point contended for by my amendment, to the satisfaction presenting not one extraordinary feature. Let us, then, of this House. The constitution of the United States first examine it in a candid, open manner, as if unconnected declares that "no State shall make any treaty," and then with Government, and submitted to the House as to a court further affirms that the "President and the Senate (twoof justice; and what is the case? thirds concurring) shall make all treaties." Treaties, unIn the year 1818, the Chickasaw Indians, desirous of der the well known meaning of the term, as established ceding a certain portion of their lands to the Government, by writers on national law, must be made between soveand understanding that, on some part of the cession, there reigns. They are never made between a Government was a salt spring, wished to make a reserve of four miles and its parts, colonies, or dependencies. They are made square around this supposed mine. They were told by the by and between Governments foreign to, and indepencommissioners that they could not have such a reserve to dent of, each other. The Indians do not constitute a foreside on in the heart of the country, but that, if they would reign nation, and so the Federal Court has recently decidchoose any friends, upon whom they could rely, to act as ed. They have always been dependent upon either the trustees for them, the reserve desired should be made, General or State Governments-in a state of pupilage, and provided they would rent out the works to a citizen of under their protection. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the disthe United States for the benefit of the Indians. The In-cussion of this very resolution shows they are not a foreign dians consented, and accordingly the reserve was made; nation. What! this House so mindful of the interest of a and they selected one Brown and Colbert, half-breeds, as foreign nation as to institute an inquiry into the conduct I understand, men of good practical information, and in of our own negotiators, to see whether they have not whom they had the utmost confidence, as their trustees, cheated this foreign nation! When did we ever do the and who, by the treaty, were authorized to lease out the like before with any other foreign nation? My word for reserve. Thus ended the treaty-a treaty made by Go- it, if this treaty had been made with Turkey, little less vernor Shelby and the present President of the United barbarous than the Indians, such solicitude would not have States. Who is there that can say aught against Governor been manifested. But, Mr. Speaker, how does it happen, Shelby? His character alone would be sufficient to pro- if these be such treaties as the constitution contemtect the treaty against the imputation of any unfairness; plated, that States have been allowed to make precisely but I humbly conceive it would lose nothing in point of ho- such with the tribes found within their limits, and that, nesty from having even the name of Andrew Jackson to too, in the very teeth of the declaration just quoted, that it. He is not yet quite so far gone in character as to be "no State shall make treaties?" Does any body deny this wholly without confidence--at least so think the people, fact? Let him recollect the treaty made by New York two and they will have their way. This treaty was submitted or three years ago, and sent to the Senate, who refused to to the Senate, passed that ordeal, and is now the supreme act upon it, on the ground that they had nothing to do with law of the land. Under the article of the treaty which it; and thereby acknowledging that it was a matter solely made the reserve, and appointed the trustees to lease it for the determination of that State. The power to treat out, it was leased to a gentleman by the name of Currin, is supreme in the General Government, and cannot, conand, if you choose, to the present Second Auditor, who, sistently, be exercised by both Governments. I put it to by the bye, was no auditor then. The lease was executed gentlemen to say whether they do not believe that the on the day the treaty was made, in anticipation of its rati-power confined in the constitution was designed to relate fication, for seven hundred and fifty bushels of salt per to foreign nations. Does the General Government ever annum, to be paid to the Indians, if salt could be made in treat with any of the States? Has it not purchased of the productive quantities. The persons who had leased the re- States territories for the purpose of erecting thereon forts serve went to work, and, after spending something like and arsenals? And whoever called or considered these three thousand dollars, utterly failed to make any thing purchases as treaties? Are the Indians, thus dependent, out of their lease. In the year 1830, when the Chicka- as I have said and shown, on the General Government, to saws were about to cede all their lands on this side of the be held in a higher and more sovereign capacity than the Mississippi, they recollected that they had an interest in States, so that when purchases of land are made of the this reserve, and concluded to extinguish the lease they latter, they are called petty bargains; but when made had previously made for a round sum in lieu of salt. Ac- from the former, they assume the dignified character of cordingly, in the treaty then made, a provision appears, treaties? We of the South do not think so; but I almost changing the terms of the treaty of 1818, so as to vest the reserve in the original lessees for the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars. Now, this is the great and monstrous fraud that is to be dragged up by this resolution. It is said the land is worth ten thousand dollars; that the treaty was made by General Coffee and Major Eaton; that, the Second Auditor is a relation of Major Eaton; and, therefore, the poor, oppressed, and much abused Indians --a very familiar slang in these days--have been most shamefully cheated and defrauded. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to agree to the resolution on the table, provided an amendment which I have prepared, and which I shall presently offer, is adopted by the House. The object of the amendment is to inform the President that the call for information on the subject of the foregoing treaties is not intended to invade his and the Se tremble to ring in this place such an unpopular sound. The resolution calls for the treaty of 1830, and the lease made under the treaty of 1830. Now, this lease is a private paper belonging to individuals, over which we have no control, and not to be found in the archives of the Government. It was made under the ratified treaty H. OF R.] New National Bank. [FEB. 6, 1832. of 1818; and, whether foul or fair, we have nothing to do under consideration, they may be found in the journal of with it. It rests in the nature of a contract, the obligation the convention. It will there appear that a proposition of which this House cannot impair by any possible legis- was made that no treaty should be binding on the United lation whatever; it belongs to the courts of justice. Does States which was not ratified by law, and that the pronot every one perceive, if there has been a fraud prac-position was explicitly rejected." Now, sir, although I tised under this treaty, and by reason of this lease, that will not say that General Jackson can do more than the the parties have their remedy at law? What were the immortal Washington, yet I will say he cannot do less trustees appointed for but to represent the Indians in this with that illustrious example before him. It requires no matter? Though as a nation they cannot sue, what is to prophet to discern the predicament in which this resoluhinder their trustees from doing it? This treaty stipula- tion places the President. If he sends the treaties, it will tion was for the express purpose of making them a per- be set down to the account of a timid, time-serving acson in law to protect the rights of the Indians. Then, if quiescence, and form a delightful contrast to the magnanithey have been defrauded, the gentleman from South Caro-mity and firmness of Washington. If he does not send lina was perfectly right in saying that they could be re- them, then what an uproar! I will not say that it will be dressed by an action at law, and, if necessary, aided by done by gentlemen on this floor, but my life upon it, every the powers of chancery. Let them sue, and let them opposition press in the United States will ring it through make it apparent to the proper tribunal that the poor In- this extended Union, that the President refused to give dians have been cheated, and I will underwrite that they the people information! Gross frauds had been committed will meet with prompt and full redress. The treaty of upon the poor oppressed Indians by the President's par1818, and the lease made under it, are now entirely out ticular friends and favorites; and he had screened their of the question. We have nothing to do with them. Let conduct from public investigation! The immediate reus see what right we have to examine the treaty of 1830. presentatives of the people had called upon him for inforIt is admitted that this treaty has never been submitted mation, and he had treated them with contempt!! Mr. to the Senate, and therefore is not ratified. It is then Speaker, this is a treaty, or it is not a treaty. If it is a not a law of the land; no rights are acquired under it; Mr. treaty, rights are vested under it which cannot be affected Currin nor the Second Auditor have not a shadow of by legislation. It is a matter which belongs exclusively to claim under that treaty. They can enforce no right at the courts of justice, and they are fully competent, at tempted to be secured under any part of it. If they least so the constitution considers them, to redress all were disposed to remove the present tenants on the land, wrongs growing out of either contracts or treaties. If it under this treaty, they could and would be stopped by a is not a treaty, and I mean if it is not ratified, Currin and bill of injunction; so that all the objections urged on this the Second Auditor have acquired nothing under it, and floor against the fraud of the treaty, as well as the barba- they fall back upon their original lease, made under the rous treatment of the poor Indians, is the proper subject first treaty, subject, as I have clearly shown, to the scru of inquiry by the Senate, whenever the treaty is submit- tiny and wholesome correction of the same even-handed ted to them for confirmation. They are the proper and tribunals. Mr. C. concluded by offering the following exclusive judges, after the document gets to them, whe-additional resolution, as an amendment: ther it should be rejected. They will not flinch from Resolved, That this application is made on the ground their duty; they have rejected treaties, and will do it again, that treaties made with the Indians do not come within whenever a proper case presents itself. What has this the meaning and intention of the constitution, conferring House to do with it? Indeed, it might so happen that the the treaty-making power on the President and Senate of Senate might differ from this House in its notions of fraud the United States; but that they are mere compacts or and inhumanity, and ratify the treaty! What would then bargains made by the authority aforesaid, as the agents of be the consequence? At all events, as the gentleman the Government, growing out of a practice, acquiesced from Tennessee last up has very pertinently and judicious-in by the States in which Indians are situated, founded on ly observed, the Senate is the proper place for all investi- an analogy to the exercise of the treaty-making power gations in relation to treaties. Power, sheer power, can with foreign Powers. do any thing; but if this House does not wish to trench upon the rights of others, and has any respect for the other departments of Government, it will abstain from any interference in this business. The House now, on motion of WHITTLESEY, of Ohio, proceeded to the orders of the day, being private bills. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6. NEW NATIONAL BANK. 2dly. We have no right to call upon the President for these documents, as treaties. If a British treaty had ar- The whole of this day's sitting was spent in receiving rived here yesterday, and, by some means or other, it was petitions and reports of committees. Amongst the fordiscovered that there was an article in it which had cheat-mer was the following for an act of incorporation for a ed that Government out of any particular right, does any one suppose that it would be wise in this House, for any purpose, either in or out of it, to call upon the President Mr. ANDERSON, of Maine, said he was requested to to send that treaty to us before he should send it to the present a memorial of the citizens of Massachusetts, praySenate, that we might inquire into the fraud, and redressing for the charter of a bank, with privileges in some reit by legislation, prior to its ratification? It would be very spects similar to the present Bank of the United States, kind to the British Government, but it would be very but on terms much more advantageous to the United States, foolish in us: so much so, that we should be laughed at. and to the several States in which branches should be loIn what does the case put and the one under debate differ? cated, than any ever proposed by the present bank. The But, Mr. Speaker, this House ought to profit by the petitioners pray for a charter for twenty years, with a experience of its own history. In the great excitement capital of fifty millions, the United States to have the produced, many years ago, by what was called Jay's right of taking any portion of the stock under one-half; treaty, it so happened that a precisely similar call to the and for this privilege, they offer to pay twenty millions of one now under consideration was made by this branch dollars, ten millions to the United States, and ten millions of Congress upon General Washington, to transmit the to the several States in which they locate branches, in anpapers in relation to that treaty to this House; but that nual payments. The petitioners, said Mr. A., are many distinguished officer promptly refused compliance, and, of them known through the United States; and I am inamong other reasons for his course, replied: "If other formed, and, from the respectability and intelligence of proofs than these be necessary to ascertain the point my correspondent, I can assure the House, that they are |