MARCH 5, 1832.] Georgia and the United States. [H. OF R. thing to what the court had done? Before the House pass- what they would think of an inquiry into the conduct of ed on the memorial, it ought to have the opinion of the the State of New York in sending off her Indians to Green Supreme Court before it; then they might see how far the Bay to freeze to death, after first taking away their domiaction of that court had fallen short, and in what respect nion from them. How would New York like it, should it needed aid from the action of that House. He put it to Georgia present a memorial such as had now been read? the House, whether such a reference as was proposed But he did injustice to that great and patriotic State. This would be respectful either to the General Government or memorial, he was confident, was not the act of that State, to a sovereign State. To give through the report of a but it would turn out, on investigation, to be the work of committee an ex parte statement of what were the laws of a few of her citizens who were dressed in black gowns; Georgia, of what had hitherto been done, and of what who professed to minister in holy things, and made many ought yet to be done in reference to the Indians within fanatical pretensions to superior benevolence, humanity, her limits. He trusted he had said enough to show that piety, love to the Indians, and all that; who thought that such a measure would be improper. But if further legis- Georgia had not piety enough-that she had not sufficient lation was needed, he would give the House a reason why regard to the principle of humanity, and who, therefore, the memorial should be sent to the Committee on Indian were graciously willing to take the State of Georgia into Affairs. That committee had the interest of the Indians, their holy keeping. The memorial proceeded from a few as well as the interests of the United States in reference pragmatical individuals who were disposed to be busyboto the Indians, under its peculiar charge; and it was for dies in other men's matters. If the House had any rethem to inquire whether Congress had done all in the spect for a sister State, a sovereign State, they would repel way of legislation, which it ought to do on that subject; such memorialists as these, they would throw such a meand if any thing further was wanted, that committee morial under the table, and not aggravate to a yet higher might present it to the House in the shape of a law, or of degree the feelings of a State already wrought up to a a report. As one of the representatives from the State of higher pitch than she could bear, and who only wanted Georgia, he was opposed to the appointment of a select the application of a match to blow the Union into ten thousand fragments; when there was not a State south of the Mr. CLAYTON, of Georgia, now said that it was not Potomac, which was not at this moment under the highest his intention to offer any disrespect to the gentleman who degree of excitement, whose people were not rising against introduced this memorial, as he believed there was no one oppression, and by town meetings and every other form of who cherished towards him a higher degree of veneration; expressing public opinion were endeavoring to bring the yet he felt himself at liberty to say what he was well con- United States to a sense of justice. Would that House vinced the people of his State would say were they per- consent to make itself the instrument of adding excitement sonally present, and that was, that the gentlemen who to excitement, till they should rend the Union to pieces? had drawn up and presented that memorial were doing A few steps more, and they would bring those States to a what they had no right to do, were meddling with what did condition like that in which the colonies were immediatenot concern them, and were acting impertinently in the ly before the rupture with great Britain. He warned, he presentation of such a paper. He was almost afraid to cautioned gentlemen; he would not stoop to entreat them. trust himself with such a subject, representing as he did Memorials like these could be got up at any time by a set half a million of the free people of the United States, and of deluded fanatics. Congress should look to the condiknowing the great indignity which they had lately receiv- tion of the old States, and not by a reckless and unfeeling ed in the pronouncing of a decision which he hoped and course provoke them yet further. He prayed gentlemen believed would be resisted with the promptitude and spi- to consider. He warned the House to proceed with prurit which became Georgians, and which he was very sure dence and consideration, and though he would not implore never would be executed till Georgia was made a howl-them, yet he earnestly warned them to disregard such a ing wilderness. As to the memorial, Georgia would treat memorial. committee. it as it deserved, with sovereign contempt; and for him- Mr. PENDLETON, of New York, said that the genself he did not care where it went, though he should sup-tleman from Georgia had great reason to distrust himself pose the most proper reference would be to the Committee in reference to the important question before the House. on Foreign Relations, since it seemed now to be settled He believed the House had seldom witnessed greater emothat the Cherokees constituted an independent foreign tion on a more inadequate occasion. The gentleman kingdom. The gentleman had referred to his resolution seemed to imagine that the petition which had been prewith respect to the bank, but there was a clear difference sented came from the State of New York. [Here Mr. between this and the question; it was expressly declared CLAYTON, speaking across, said he had corrected himin the charter of the United States' Bank, that when its self.] But it was no such thing, said Mr. P. It was a peaffairs were examined by the House, that task should be tition from citizens of the United States, who possessed by performed by a select committee. This was the reason the constitution a right which no gentleman there was why he had moved that his resolution should be referred competent to question, to present their wishes, hopes, and to such a committee: although the gentleman from Massa- opinions to the House of Representatives. What was the chusetts had said that the two cases were similar, yet he should say God forbid that Georgia should ever put herself on a footing with the Bank of the United States; and when ever she was so treated, he should always repel the attack. Georgia stood upon a coequal footing with the other States, and far, very far, above the speculating footing of the Bank of the United States. question? The memorial presented a statement of what had been the law from the earliest period of our national history until the present time-a law which was publicly known in the nation, and which was sustained by the treaties of the United States, and by the constitution. Against which course of law, Georgia had assumed a jurisdiction which did not belong to her, and under the exercise of Mr. C. said that he had risen for the express purpose of which two American citizens had been committed to prison. showing his contempt for that memorial; and he would, Mr. P. asked whether there was the least portion or intherefore, move an amendment to the motion of the gen-gredient of novelty in the statements which the petition tleman from Massachusetts, which was, that this memorial presented. Was this a new attempt to resist the enshould be referred to a select committee, provided the croachments of Georgia? Far from it. The petitioners State of New York should first consent that a committee stood up for a law which, while this country possessed any of this House should be appointed to investigate the man- thing that could be called antiquity, might claim that anner in which that State had treated the Indians within her tiquity, having been coeval with the existence of the Golimits. He would ask the representatives from that State vernment. H. OF R.] Georgia and the United States. [MARCH 5, 1832. Such memorialists were not to be charged with rashness, Archer, Ashley, John S. Barbour, Barnwell, Barringer, or with an attempt at usurpation, if they presented their Beardsley, Bell, Bethune, John Blair, Bouck, Bouldin, views to the House in a respectful manner. The petition Branch, John Brodhead, John C. Brodhead, Cambreleng, was consonant with the uniform law of the country. He Carr, Carson, Chandler, Chinn, Claiborne, Clay, Claywas not prepared to say whether, in selecting one of two ton, Coke, Conner, Craig, Davenport, Dayan, Dewart, committees, any of the grave and momentous questions to Doubleday, Felder, Fitzgerald, Gaither, Gordon, Griffin, which the gentleman from Georgia had alluded, did or Thomas H. Hall, William Hall, Harper, Hawes, Hawkins, did not arise; but if they did, there was an obvious pro- Hogan, Holland, Horn, Howard, Hubbard, Isacks, Jarvis, priety in sending the memorial to a select committee. Jewett, Richard M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Kavanagh, The judgment of the House, or of the Speaker, so ad- Adam King, John King, Henry King, Lamar, Lansing, vised, would place on such a committee the talents and Lecompte, Lent, Lewis, Lyon, Mann, Mardis, Mason, the temper so eminently requisite in giving to this subject William McCoy, Robert McCoy, McDuffie, McIntire, the consideration it deserves. In saying this, however, he McKay, T. R. Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Newnan, Patton, meant no disrespect to the Committee on Indian Affairs. Pierson, Plummer, Polk, E. C. Reed, Rencher, Soule, That committee had been organized without any refer- Speight, Standifer, Stephens, P. Thomas, Wiley Thompence to such a question as this, but a selection made at this son, Verplanck, Wardwell, Wayne, Weeks, C. P. time would be made with a direct reference to the sub- White.--91. ject. He hoped the House would not be thought to inter- NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, C. Allan, Allison, Appleton, fere with what was often called the sovereignty of Georgia. Armstrong, Arnold, Babcock, Banks, Barstow, Isaac C. The use of that expression, however, was but a begging Bates, Briggs, Bucher, Burges, Cahoon, Choate, Collier, of the question. In the matter in hand, Georgia was not Lewis Conduct, Silas Condit, Eleutheros Cooke, Bates sovereign, and the gentleman, in calling her so, assumed Cooke, Cooper, Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crawford, the chief thing in dispute. The circumstance of a solemn Creighton, Daniel, John Davis, Warren R. Davis, Dearand recent decision of the Supreme Court gave to the sub- born, Denny, Dickson, Doddridge, Drayton, Ellsworth, ject additional importance. Such a subject was of itself G. Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, H. Everett, sufficient for a select committee, and this consideration Grennell, Heister, Hodges, Hughes, Hunt, Huntington, alone was sufficient to decide his vote in favor of such a Ihrie, Irvin, Jenifer, Kendail, Kennon, Leavitt, Letcher, committee. Marshall, McCarty, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, New- Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, said that he presumed it was not the opinion of any member of the House that it was proper, at this time, to enter upon the discussion of the great Indian question. Few could doubt that, in some form or other, the subject must be discussed during the session. He should not enter into it at present, but would merely offer a few remarks in reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS.] That gen- So the House refused to lay the memorial on the table. tleman had not stated any specific objection to the refer- Mr. BEARDSLEY, of New York, observed that the ence of the memorial to the Committee on Indian Affairs. petition was couched in respectful terms, and appeared On the contrary, he had expressly admitted that, under to be signed by a very large number of citizens. It did the rules of the House, that would be the appropriate not point out or advise any particular mode of action by committee. But he had adverted to a recent occurrence the House. No fault appeared upon the face of the pain another part of the capitol, which he seemed to think per, yet a gentleman from Georgia had suggested that ought to govern the decisions of this House. Could it be the proper course of the House would be to repel the possible? Could any gentleman possibly think that a de- memorialists, to put their memorial out at the door, or cision of the Supreme Court ought to dictate a course to throw it under the table. But every citizen of this rethat House? Suppose it should turn out, on a calm in- public had a right to petition that House; and if he did so vestigation, that, with regard to this very point, there were in a respectful manner, Mr. B. was prepared to act on conflicting decisions of that tribunal: how then? But his petition as circumstances might require. Another enough of that. The gentleman from Massachusetts pro-view had been taken on the other side, and a colleague of posed a select committee. Why? This preference was his [Mr. PENDLETON] had suggested that the motion beprobably founded on the idea that the Indian Committee fore the House involved the right of petition; but in would take a different view of the subject from a select this he certainly was mistaken. The manner in which committee. But was that any reason why the rules of the a petition should be disposed of, had no connexion with House should be departed from? Would not the same ob- the right to offer it. The House had already received jection apply to a select committee as to the Committee the memorial. The right of petitioning had been exeron Indian Affairs? A select committee will of course be cised; and however the memorial might be disposed of, composed of gentlemen in favor of the memorial. This that right remains still inviolate. Mr. B. inquired what was parliamentary. But it formed as great an objection object the House could have in professing to act on this to a select committee, as any supposed prepossession of a petition. How could the action of that House be brought standing committee did to it. A departure from the rules to redress the grievances it complains of? What were of the House, for the most part, resulted in a waste of those grievances? They were two: first, that Georgia time. As the whole subject would hereafter come before had extended her laws over the Indian territory; and, the House, and would receive a fair and full discussion secondly, that two citizens of the United States had been under a different shape, he hoped the gentleman would condemned and punished as criminals, under the laws consent to its lying for the present on the table. Mr. T. of that State. The petition also said that certain treaties concluded by making that motion. of the United States had guarantied to the Cherokees Mr. ELLSWORTH asked him to withdraw it, but he the occupation of their lands. Now it was notorious that refused. the two individuals had been tried and fully convicted of what was deemed a criminal offence, and the validity of the law was in the petition drawn into question. But since then the Supreme Court had decided that all the acts of Georgia extending the jurisdiction of her laws over the Indians, and declaring the acts which these per Mr. WHITTLESEY then demanded the yeas and nays on the question of laying the memorial on the table. They were ordered by the House, and, being taken, stood as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Adair, Alexander, Anderson, Angel, MARCH 5, 1832.] Georgia and the United States. [H. OF R. sons committed to be criminal, were unconstitutional, in- honest, and the House might with propriety receive their consistent with existing treaties, and, therefore, null and memorial. void. Well, assuming this to be so, it might have been Mr. ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, said that he did very fit that the Supreme Court should render such a not look upon this memorial in the same light as some judgment, that the judgment should be enforced, and other gentlemen seemed to do, who had addressed the that the Executive arm should be applied to carry the House, and he was happy that it had not been laid upon judgment into effect. On that point, however, he was the table. Be it what it might, its character was subnot called to express any opinion, nor was that House.stantially this: An application from two citizens of the They were not there for the purpose of giving effect United States, who feel themselves to be in bondage, reeither to the executive or to the judicial power. They spectfully made through their friends to this Government, sat there to enact laws, to lay down the rule of action. It to know whether they were in fact constitutionally imremained for the judiciary to interpret those laws, and to prisoned, and were so to remain. He did not consider issue their mandate accordingly, and, if resisted, it was the the question as between the Government and Georgia, duty of the Executive to call out the military force. In but between the Government and these citizens, who set those subjects, however, a variety of subjects were in-forth that in consequence of the action of the Governvolved, which did not come before the House on a mere ment in relation to Georgia, they had been imprisoned, collateral matter. What did gentlemen propose? He and who came to the House to know whether there was hoped the House would be apprised of the object in view. no relief for their case. The question was, what could Was it said that the law of the United States was defect- be done? Would any say that this was a question that ive? That was not complained of. The complaint was belonged to the Committee on Indian Affairs? What as to the interference of Georgia with the rights of the had that committee to do with it? Clearly nothing. If Indians. But this House could do nothing which would it was appropriate to any one of the standing committees affect Georgia in the case. The laws it had already en- of the House, it must be the Committee on the Judiciary. acted, were abundantly sufficient to meet all the ques. He did not personally wish that it should go to that comtions which could arise on this petition. Gentlemen mittee. But the subject was before the House, and a might say that Georgia had improperly treated the mis-deep interest was felt respecting it throughout the comsionaries. Granting this to be true, had the House the munity. Ought it not to be sent to a committee who power to relieve them? Could that House repeal the laws would give it prompt attention? The gentleman from of Georgia? Could its action operate in any way on those New York [Mr. BEARDSLEY] had said that the House individuals? No doubt the persons who presented the could not act upon the subject. That might be the case, memorial entertained a very honest conviction that Geor- or it might not. He trusted the decision made in another gia had been guilty of extreme oppressions; and though branch of the Government had secured the release of he could not concur entirely in that opinion, he admitted these individuals from their unconstitutional bondage. He that they had a right to present their views on the sub-believed that that decision had effected its proper object. ject in a memorial; while the House, on the other hand, He hoped that neither the threats nor the ardent feeling had an equal right to dispose of that memorial as they manifested by the gentleman from Georgia were a just might see fit, as they would of any other memorial. If it indication of the ultimate course which Georgia would should be manifest that the House could not act, it might very properly lay the memorial on the table. He could not see how the House was called to act on either of the subjects in the memorial. Was it the province of that House to enforce treaties? pursue. But if that decision was constitutional, yet could not be enforced, the intercourse between them and the Indians would be taken out of their hands, and he pronounced, in his place, the constitution to be broken and gone; and henceforth it would be a perfectly easy thing for any State to throw off at will the obligations of that instrument. But if the decision should operate to free these citizens from what had been denominated a worse The SPEAKER replied in the negative; but he under-than Tripolitan bondage, he should rejoice. The mestood the gentleman as arguing to show that the memorial morial came from very respectable citizens of one of our ought not to be referred at all. most important cities. Was not the House to take cog Mr. DODDRIDGE here interposed, and inquired of the Speaker whether it was in order to go into the merits on a mere question of reference. Mr. B. resumed, and said that he was endeavoring to nizance of it? Ought they to send it to the Committee on show that there was nothing on the face of the memorial Indian Affairs? They might as well send it to the Comwhich called for, or could receive the action of the House.mittee of Claims. He hoped that it would go to a select The gentleman from Massachusetts had spoken of a de- committee, that, if there were in the House any friends cision of the Supreme Court, and of the fact that two of these imprisoned missionaries, they might have an opmissionaries were imprisoned. He did hope the gentle-portunity of going before that committee to see whether man would explain to the House the object that was to these men could or could not be delivered. It might be be obtained. That House could do nothing to further necessary to legislate, or it might be proper to inquire the effect of a decision of the Supreme Court. If that into the facts and report them to the House. In either court had jurisdiction of the case, their judgment was case a select committee would be the proper organ. binding, and it was the duty of the Executive to enforce Mr. REED, of Massachusetts, said that he knew not it; but if they had not jurisdiction, the House could not the name of one of these petitioners, but they seemed give it to them. He thought it would be treating the to be numerous, and he was told they were respectable. memorial with no disrespect to lay it upon the table, and He trusted they would be treated as all other petitioners not, by referring it to a select committee, to treat it as if were, with great respect. it was a matter of special importance. He did not sup- He was sorry for the remarks which had fallen from pose the gentleman from Massachusetts so designed, but the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. CLAYTON.] He conhis motion might induce many to get up such petitions. sidered them entirely uncalled for. The gentleman had He could not agree with the gentleman from Georgia, anticipated the subject, which would come quite soon that all the signers of that memorial were black coats, enough. He regretted that the gentleman from New or deluded instruments, acting under their influence. York [Mr. BEARDSLEY] should have supposed that the He knew not that such was not the case, but that num- subject did not admit the action of that House. Some bers of the signers were acting under a deep and honest gentlemen appeared to him to wish to give the matter the feeling. He considered indeed that feeling as in a great go-by. But the very thing inquired of was, whether degree mistaken, but he had no doubt it was perfectly there could be no useful action in the House. The thing VOL. VIII.-127 H. OF R.] Georgia and the United States. [MARCH 5, 1832. for the committee to inquire into was, whether any thing der? None, sir, none. It is a matter entirely beyond our could be done. If not, there was an end of it. He recol- jurisdiction. lected, on a former occasion, to have heard one of the Mr. F. conceived that the difficulty in which the House gentlemen from Georgia, [Mr. THOMPSON,] who now was involved, arose from not having distinguished between strenuously opposed a select committee, just as strenuous the time at which this petition was drawn up and the time in favor of a select committee. But why? The interests at which it is presented. The meeting from which this of Georgia were then in question. The petition then was, petition emanates was held, Mr. F. had understood, a not from two poor missionaries, but from the State of month ago. The persons composing it were not, perGeorgia; and, when Georgia was in question, Georgia haps, aware that the very case to which they refer was must have a select committee. A State was interested, then pending before the Supreme Court; or perhaps they therefore the petition was of great consequence. It were apprised of this, and wished to strengthen and concould not go to a standing committee. Nothing would firm the resolution of the court in the decision of this delisuit him then but a select committee: now a select com- cate and important cause, though it could not be presummittee was very improper. Another gentleman from ed that any one who knew the character of that tribunal Georgia [Mr. CLAYTON] had told the House that Georgia would suppose that it needed any such extraneous aid. If, never would submit to the decision of the Supreme Court. then,this memorial had been presented before the case came That question would be settled hereafter. The gentle- before the court, there might have been some plausibility man from Connecticut had well said that a select com---but bare plausibility--in the reasons urged for referring mittee would be most competent to the inquiry. The it to the consideration of a committee. But the case has gentleman from Georgia [Mr. THOMPSON] had said that been heard and adjudicated by the judiciary department, the House was presumed to know that the Committee on and how is it competent for this House now to interfere? Indian Affairs was hostile to the object of this petition, yet It had, indeed, been intimated that the State of Georgia he urged its reference to that committee. Would the would not acquiesce in the decision, and the object seemgentleman refer the petition to a hostile committee? Was ed to be to devise measures to meet this contingency. Mr. that according to parliamentary usage? Ought not every F. did not intend, at this time, to express any opinion as petition to be sent to a committee who would give it a fair, to the course which that State would pursue, or ought to unbiassed examination? The gentleman's reason was con- pursue; he should carefully suppress any feeling which clusive why it ought not to be sent to the Committee on the present state of things might be calculated to produce; Indian Affairs. he should exhibit no violence, he felt none; he wished to [Mr. THOMPSON explained.] examine the proposition before the House calmly and disMr. R. resumed. The appointment of a select commit-passionately. Suppose, then, said Mr. F., that this metee would be no innovation on parliamentary usage, but the morial is referred to a committee, that in some ten or fifreverse. When Georgia petitioned for her military claims, teen days a report is made, and a bill reported to meet the the gentleman had insisted on a select committee. Mr. emergency which is anticipated, and that in a short time R. had agreed with him, and voted with him at that time. thereafter it should turn out that the decision of the SuThe gentleman now changed his ground, but Mr. R. con- preme Court has been submitted to, and the prisoners distinued to think as he had done before. charged, what a spectacle would this House exhibit, legislating for a case that never did, and never may exist? But reverse the proposition--suppose the State of Georgia should refuse to yield obedience to the decision of the Supreme Court, and should still retain the missionaries in the penitentiary, what redress ean this House afford? Shall we issue a habeas corpus to bring them before us? Shall we usurp the powers of the judiciary? Or is Congress to be called on to give additional powers to the courts to pass laws to carry their decisions into execution after they are made? No, sir, let us not interfere with anoMr. FOSTER said he had been anxious to ascertain ther department of the Government; these missionaries who were the parties to the proceeding now before the have chosen to rely on the judiciary; let not Congress House. The right of petitioning for a redress of griev- then interpose. We have instances of usurpation of ances was conceded; but are these memorialists aggrieved? powers sufficiently frequent already; let us not multiply No, sir, they are complaining of injuries suffered by them. The other gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CLAYTON] had strongly appealed to the courtesy and magnanimity of the House to send his resolution about the bank to a select committee. How did the gentleman get rid of his own argument? The subject surely was important enough, and novel enough, and difficult enough, to call for a select committee, and he hoped the memorial would not be treated as the gentleman from Georgia proposed, by being scouted out of the House, or thrown under the Clerk's table. others; they are the friends of the missionaries who are Mr. F. observed, in referring more particularly to the now confined in the penitentiary of Georgia for a violation | memorial, that it contained two classes of complaints: one, of the laws of that State; and it is in behalf of these mis- that the treaties between the United States and the Chesionaries that this memorial is presented. Mr. F. was rokee Indians had been violated by Georgia; the other, willing to consider it as the petition of the missionaries that the missionaries, in whose special behalf this memothemselves. And bow can this House act on it? It is rial was presented, were prosecuted and convicted, and moved to refer the memorial to a select committee; but why refer it to a committee at all? The object of referring a petition or proposition to a committee is, that it may be calmly and deliberately examined, and some particular, definite action devised. But do we require the investigation and report of a committee to guide us in our decision as to the matters presented by this memorial? Mr. F. had listened anxiously to hear whether any gentleman would suggest any course that the House could pursue. For himself, he could not imagine that we could do any thing. These missionaries, by their agents and attorneys in fact, the memorialists, represent that they are now in confinement by virtue of an unconstitutional law, and they apply to us for relief. What can this House do? What assistance, what redress, have we the power to ren were now suffering under, and by virtue of, an unconsti tutional law. Now, as to a reference of the first part of the memorial, the question was settled two years ago. A memorial from the city of New York was then presented, complaining, as this memorial does, of the oppressions and evils which the Cherokees were suffering, and, on motion of the gentleman who introduced it, by a vote of a large majority of the House, it was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. That reference, too, was in conformity with the rules of the House, which prescribe that all matters relating to the concerns of the Indians, or to Indian affairs generally, shall be submitted to the standing committee on that subject. And will the House now interpose, and wrest from this committee a matter embraced directly within its jurisdiction? Will you treat the com MARCH 5, 1832.] Georgia and the United States. [H. of R. mittee with such marked disrespect? Surely not. The public journals, that after the writ of error had been sued House must perceive too clearly the importance of con- out, and a summons issued by the Supreme Court, the fiding to every committee the subjects which legitimately subject had, by a special message of the Governor of belong to it, and of confining each within its proper and Georgia, been brought before the Legislature of that prescribed boundaries. As to that part of the memorial State. And the last act of that Legislature had been a relating to the punishment of these missionaries under an declaration that the executive officers of the State of unconstitutional law, if the House should determine on a Georgia, from the highest to the lowest, should pay no reference of the subject at all, Mr. F. agreed with the attention to the writ of error, or to the process of the gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. ELLSWORTH,] that it Supreme Court, but should disregard it entirely, and the should go to the Committee on the Judiciary. Judicial pro- Legislature would hold them harmless. Following up ceedings, complaints of the judgments of courts, and peti- that decision, it had been communicated to the House this tions for relief from those judgments, were matters pecu- morning, that the Supreme Court had decided the law of liarly appertaining to that committee. Mr. F. had yet to Georgia to be unconstitutional, the sentence of its court learn that it was competent for any committee of this null, and that a mandate had been sent directing the priHouse, or the House itself, to examine into and pass upon soners to be set at liberty. And now, what did he hear? the constitutionality of State laws, or review the decisions To his utter surprise and astonishment, he had heard of State courts: but if the House seriously desire the re-language such as he hoped never would have been uttered port of a committee to aid them in deciding these ques- within these walls. A gentleman had declared in his seat tions, send them to the Judiciary Committee, and let us that that decision of the Supreme Court "never would hear what remedy can be devised for the evils of which we be enforced till Georgia was made a howling wilderness;" have such loud and feeling complaints. meaning until her plantations should be destroyed, and Mr. DICKSON, of New York, observed that the House her inhabitants slaughtered. Under these circumstances, appeared to consider the memorial as worthy of its action a memorial came into the House, on which it was said the in some form, since it had refused to lay it on the table. House could not act. But, he asked, was it not a proper The argument of the gentleman from Georgia would im-subject of inquiry, whether any measures could be deply that nothing ought to be done with it; but the House vised to aid the Executive in carrying into execution the had expressed a different opinion. They had passed on decision of the highest judicial tribunal? He would say that question, and had resolved that something should be that if those decisions were to be disregarded, and every done with it. From whom did the memorial emanate? State was to be allowed the liberty of pronouncing them From a thousand or two thousand respectable inhabitants null, our Union was no better than a rope of sand, and of the State of New York. Yet the House was gravely the entire fabric of our Government was dissolved. He told, in this land of freedom, and when the question of the did not say that any measure was necessary. Before Conright of petition had been raised, that the citizens of this gress adjourned, they should probably know whether the republic had no business to interfere, and that the pre-mandate of the court would be obeyed. But if the peosenting of the petition was an act of impertinence. ple of Georgia should carry out the declaration which This was language which would not be submitted to in had been made in their name, and should set the Governa British Parliament, by subjects of the British Crown.ment at defiance, he asked every prudent man whether Every petition, respectfully framed, was entitled, by the it might not be proper that a committee should inquire constitution and the law, to the respectful attention of that whether any thing more was needed to aid the GovernHouse. To what did this petition refer? Two white free ment in sustaining the court. What measures might be citizens of the United States, illegally incarcerated in the needed, he did not pretend to say. Certainly the subject dungeons of Georgia, prayed an inquiry by that House had no connexion with a Committee on Indian Affairs. into some measures for their relief, and asked that the The Indians were not mentioned but incidentally. If measures of Georgia, which are at war with the constitu- the memorial went to any committee, certainly it should tion, with the laws and the treaties of the United States, go to a select committee. may be defeated. The State of Georgia and these two Mr. DRAYTON said he regretted very much that this citizens were the parties involved. The memorial com- memorial had been brought before the House, because, to plained of no wrong done to the Cherokee Indians, or In-speak of the subjects involved in it in the mildest and dians of any other tribe. It asked no redress for them; most favorable terms, the discussion of them, at this time, and how then could it be an appropriate subject for the action of the Committee on Indian Affairs? The whole case lay between citizens of the United States and the State of Georgia. What had the Indian Committee to do with it? But even allowing that was the proper committee on common occasions, it was not so in the present case. Why? The important question in relation to the policy to be observed towards the Indians had long divided this Government. A portion of the gentlemen who composed the Indian Committee had, for several years, acted on that subject, and its chairman was the very gentleman who brought forward a system of measures held by many to be inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States. In another branch of the Government, a solemn decision had lately been given, declaring the laws of Georgia which had grown out of that system to be void and of non-effect. The judgment of the court under which these men had been imprisoned was reversed, and the prisoners declared entitled to their liberty. It had been very triumphantly asked, why should there be any action of the House? He would tell gentlemen why; and he begged the attention of the House to the passing events of the day. It had been stated in the was at least unnecessary. I heard the memorial read, said Mr. D., and in substance it is neither more nor less than an enumeration of various treaties subsisting between the United States and the Indians, and a reference to various laws of the United States relating to these Indians, and praying that Congress would adopt such measures as they should deem expedient respecting them. To show that I was not incorrect in stating that this discussion was at least unnecessary, I will suppose that a select committee had been appointed by this House to take into their consideration the matters stated by the memorialists, and that the committee had made a report in accordance with what the memorialists themselves desired it to contain. What would that report in substance be? That the several treaties specified by the memorialists had been ratified, and that the several laws enumerated by them were in existence, and that those treaties and laws ought to be carried into execution. If we had presented to us such a report, is it not manifest that the memorialists and the Indians would be precisely in the situation in which they now are? Where then would be the utility of the report? If the report, granting it to be confirmed by the House, could have any effect, it must be either upon the legislation of Congress, the conduct of the Executive, or upon |