in order to avoid the causes of war, as well as to save the Indians from the intrigues of individuals, and from alliances with foreign powers. These Indians were likewise very formidable and dangerous. Under the old Congress and the confederation, all our intercourse with the Indians was in our national character. As such we made treaties with them, offensive and defensive-induced them to forego all connexion with other nations, and to commit themselves and their concerns into our hands. As a nation, too, from the first, this Government has admitted their independent existence, and their full right to the soil. We have never usurped their rights, but have maintained a friendly connexion with them, and purchased their lands when we wanted them and they would sell.

In 1785 we made our first treaty with the Cherokees. In the treaty we agreed that they should have a delegate in Congress. The treaty begins thus: "the commissioners plenipotentiary of the United States of America in Congress assembled give peace to all the Cherokees, and receive them into the favor and protection of the United States of America, on the following conditions:

"Article 3. The said Indians, for themselves and their respective tribes and towns, do acknowledge all the Cherokees to be under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whatever.

"Article 9. For the benefit and comfort of the Indians, and for the prevention of injuries or oppressions on the part of the citizens or Indians, the United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with the Indians, and managing all their affairs in such manner as they think proper.

"Article 12. That the Indians may have full confidence in the justice of the United States respecting their interests, they shall have a right to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress.

"Article 13. The hatchet shall be forever buried; and the peace given by the United States, and friendship re-established between the said States, on the one part, and all the Cherokees on the other, shall be universal; and the contracting parties shall use their utmost endeavors to maintain the peace given as aforesaid, and friendship reestablished."

The same provisions and mutual stipulations are to be found in the treaty of Holston, made in the year 1791, and so in the subsequent treaties down to the present day.

[H. of R.

the Indian tribes, without the restriction in the eighth article of the confederation.

In 1790, the second session of the first Congress, this power was carried into effect, by first appropriating twenty thousand dollars to make treaties. And at the second session they passed the act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, which expired in 1793, and has been renewed from time to time, until, in 1802, it was permanently enacted, substantially as it now is. The treaties with the Cherokees, and the provisions of the intercourse law of 1802, all now in force, are substantially the same. I ask the attention of the committee to them very particularly, for I hold them to be indubitable evidence of the national character in which we acted, utterly inconsistent with the assumed jurisdiction of Georgia, and such as imperiously demand of us to resist the claim of Georgia, or abandon our treaties and our laws.

1st. The boundaries of the Indian country are express ly, by treaty and legislative enactment, recognised and established, and the President is directed to ascertain them. 2. By treaty and legislative enactment, the Indians cannot sell any of their lands to third persons or foreign States.

3. By act of Congress, no person can enter the Indian territory to trade, without license, and giving bond of one thousand dollars, with surety; nor can a foreigner ever obtain license at all.

4th. No person shall settle in the Indian territory, nor shall survey or mark out the same; and if he does, the President may remove him by military force.

5th. No person shall purchase of the Indians clothing, guns, or implements of husbandry.

6th. Every white man found over the line, may be seized by military force, and carried into any one of three adjoining States, and tried.

7th. So he may be seized and tried wherever he may be found.

8th. All crimes committed by Indians shall be tried in the United States' courts.

9th. The tribes first, and Government finally, are liable for all depredations by the Indians, demand being first made on the superintendent.

10th. Indian agents are located among the tribes, and they only can designate places of trade.

11th. The President may regulate and forbid the sale of In-spirituous liquors among the Indians.

Can we need other evidence that our relation to the dians has been national, exclusively, from the first? The States and individuals have been prohibited the purchase of Indian land. All our dealing with the Indian tribes bears but one interpretation-that of two distinct parties treating in their national character.

Sir, at the time when these States established the present Government, how did they find these Indian tribes, and our relations with them?

They found

1st. Treaties of friendship and alliance existing between them and us, containing reciprocal obligations and guaranties.

2d. They found their national domain marked out and defined.

3d. They found them nations in claim, in enjoyment, and right-acknowledging no dependence.

12th. The President may cause them to be furnished with domestic animals and implements of husbandry, and with goods and money.

13th. To prevent their further decline, the President may appoint persons to instruct them in agriculture and knowledge, and ten thousand dollars is appropriated annually therefor.

Now Georgia has assumed the entire civil and criminal jurisdiction over all this Indian territory within her limits, as has Alabama and Mississippi; and they claim that, let their laws be what they may, the United State cannot interpose; no, not if they pass a law to put every man of them to death. These States have driven the United States out of their State limits, and now deny their right, by treaty or legislation to interfere in the internal and domestie concerns of the Indians. At one blow our treaties and

4th. They found that, under existing treaties, the Unit-laws fall to the ground. And we are to sanction and sused States had excluded the whites from the Indian terri-tain these measures, by appropriating the funds of the Gotory, and had regulated all trade and intercourse with vernment! I ask this House to consider the character of them, as it is now done. The Ohio river was made to di- the laws of Georgia, and say if they are willing to aid in vide them into two departments, the North and the South. the execution of her designs. Before 1787, there had been three departments. The old Congress, in 1787, appropriated thirty-four thousand dollars for the making treaties with the Indians.

In this state of things the present Government was formed, and to it is given the power of regulating commerce with foreign nations, between the States, and with

But, sir, aside from the injustice, upon general principles, of removing the Indians, I ask if this Government is not bound by treaties to protect them against every body. Congress, under the power of the constitution, has repeatedly entered into compact with the Indians.

1st. She has made appropriations beforehand, to ena

secret agents to advise them to go? Why have these States passed their unequal and unprotecting laws? Does this look like a wish on the part of the Cherokees to remove! And why, let me ask, have they so long refused the offers made them by the Government! But it is said, the chiefs! the chiefs! they are the mischief-makers-they advise the InBut, sir, if Congress had not expressly directed the Pre- dians to stay. And has it come to this, that we are to find sident to make treaties, and had not ratified his acts after fault with the poor Indian, because he regards the advice they were done, he has the power given him in the con- of his chief and guardian? Do not we and other nations stitution. We have been making treaties with the Indians the same? Shall we take the ground that the Indians are from the first. We know that Washington, Adams, and willing to remove, because we, in our humanity, think they every President since, has acted upon the idea that this ought to be. They have, and still do, as a nation and as Government possessed the power. By virtue of these individuals, declare they are not willing to remove; and treaties we have obtained the country of the Indians-among other things, they give, as a reason for their unwilthat which we never claimed as ours-aud for it we have stipulated to pay annuities. Are all these things mere waste paper! Can this Government say we have no power to treat, while we are constantly doing it, and now hold much of their land under treaties?

Mr. FOSTER said that the interest which the State of Georgia had in the bill then under consideration, would, be hoped, be a sufficient apology for his engaging in this discussion. I am, however, [said Mr. F.] not a little discouraged, from a consciousness that anything coming from a representative of that State, on this subject will be received with great caution, if not distrust. We are considered (as to a considerable extent, we really are) parties in interest, as advocating our own cause-and an argument which coming from some other quarter, would be consiBut it is said the Cherokees and other tribes are wildered as entitled to some weight, will, I fear, lose its effect ling to remove. What, then, mean these memorials of when urged by one of us. Sir, I hope gentlemen will touching entreaty on our tables, signed by some thousands guard themselves against any influence of this kind-80 of them, begging that they may not be forced to leave far, especially, as concerns the humble individual who now their country Why has Government sent in among them addresses you, I beg them to consider the cause, and not

the advocate, and not to resist the argument merely on account of the source from which it proceeds.

And, while I thus frankly state the spirit with which I enter into this debate towards the Indians, I shall endeavor, in the remarks which I may offer to the committee, carefully to avoid using any expression which might offend the feelings of any one, either here or elsewhere. Even the numerous memorialists who have loaded our ta bles with their petitions and remonstrances in behalf of the Indians, and whose language, in some instances, to wards the people of Georgia, gives them very little claim to our forbearance, need entertain no apprehensions of retaliation from me. I have no disposition to recriminate. Sir, I have a higher purpose in view-defence is my object. I take my stand on the borders of my State, for the purpose of repelling the attacks which have been made, and are still making, upon her rights and character; and if, in the prosecution of this duty, I should find it necessary to make an incursion into the territories of our assailants, I shall endeavor to do it in such a way as to be guilty of no departure from the established rules and principles of a strictly defensive war.

[H. of R.

vernment had driven out the natives with fire and sword, and taken possession, as it was after a purchase from those natives.

But we have to contend with another very serious difficulty. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is But further, as regards this right acquired by discovea strong and powerful feeling in favor of the Indians, ry—it has been repeatedly determined, and indeed never which pervades an extensive portion of this country, the controverted, that the discovering nation had not only a influence of which is very perceptible in this House. right to acquire the country from the natives, but also the Of this I am not disposed to complain-the feelings of hu- right to prohibit them from disposing of it to any other manity are honorable to our nature, and, even when mis-nation or to individuals. And will it be pretended that a guided, are entitled to our most charitable indulgence; people who were denied the privilege of disposing of but gentlemen will pardon me when I admonish them that their own property, either as a nation or as individuals, this is the very kind of feeling which is most calculated to and that by a foreign power, were sovereign? What kind mislead the judgment. Sir, grave and important ques of sovereignty is this which is subject to be thus qualified tions are now submitted for our determination, and they and controlled? Sir, it is in vain for gentlemen to conshould be gravely and dispassionately considered. So far tend that the Indian tribes were sovereign and indepenas respects the indulgence of a kind and friendly feeling dent when they were subjected to such restrictions. But towards our red brethren, I yield to no gentlemau on this the whole difficulty is removed when we advert to the floor. With many of the Cherokees I am personally ac- character of the Indian title. They had nothing like naquainted-I have stood in a relation to some of them cal- tional sovereignty, as understood by civilized nations: their culated to inspire a deep interest in their fate; it has fallen right to the land they occupied grew out of their possesto my lot, on various occasions, in the courts of Georgia, sion; it was strictly the title of occupancy-an individual to have been engaged as their advocate in the defence of right; and so long as the possession continued, the right their rights and interests. Sir, they are my friends, and was valid; but when the possession was abandoned, the they have full confidence in my friendship for them-and title ceased. It is very obvious, then, that, as occupancy I would be the last man to encourage an act of injustice alone could vest the title, the aborigines could have no or oppression towards them. right to the vacant lands around them; these, on the discovery of the country, the subjects of the discovering nation might occupy. By this occupancy they acquired an individual title; and, upon receiving an act of incorporation from their sovereign, they became a part of the empire, and entitled to the protection of the law; and thus followed the sovereignty. Such, sir, are the doctrines laid down by the writers on national law-they are not new, they existed long before any controversy between Georgia and the Cherokees. But, by way of sustaining them still more fully, permit me to present to the committee the opinion of a distinguished citizen of this country, which certainly will command their respect. Before I do so, however, I will refer to the President's message at the commencement of the present session, and read a short extract from it; and really if it were not so well known that he is the copyist of no man's style or sentiments, we might almost charge him with plagiarism. Speaking of subjecting the Indians to the laws of the States in which they live, the President says, “in return for their obedience as individuals, they (the Indians) will, The gentleman from New York has gone into a very without doubt, be protected in the enjoyment of their posminute and critical investigation of the right by which sessions which they have improved by their industry. But our ancestors obtained the possession of this country. He it seems to me visionary to suppose that in this State of tells us that discovery only gave the title as between the things claims can be allowed on tracts of country on which European nations and merely conferred the right, on they have neither dwelt nor made improvements, merely the discovering nation, of acquiring the territory from the because they have seen them from the mountain, or passsavages: thus discovery gave the right of obtaining possesed them in the chase." I will now turn to the opinion of sion, and the possession when procured completed the title; the distinguished gentleman to whom I first alluded. I read so that our title to the country is really that of purchase from an oration delivered by the Hon. John Quincy from the aborigines. The gentleman here, too, took oc- Adams, at Plymouth, on the anniversary festival of the casion to remind us that the theory of the English tenures, sons of the pilgrims in the year 1802. "There are moralthat title by which lands are held, is, that they originally ists (says the orator) who have questioned the fright of belonged to the Crown, and were granted out by the King. Europeans to intrude upon the possessions of the aborigiAnd pray, sir, what is our theory upon this subject Is nals in any case, and under any limitations whatever. But it not precisely the same! Go into any of our courts, and have they maturely considered the whole subject? The witness the trial of a suit for land. What is the very first Indian right of possession itself stands, with regard to the link in the chain of title which a party introduces to es- greatest part of the country, upon a questionable founda tablish his claim? Is it not the grant or patent from the tion. Their cultivated fields, their constructed habitaState or United States? Do the courts go beyond these to tions, a space of ample sufficiency for their subsistence, ascertain how the granting power acquired the right to and whatever they had invested for themselves by personal dispose of the land? Is the inquiry ever made how the labor, were undoubtedly, by the laws of nature, theirs. But territory was procured from the aborigines? No, sir; such what is the right of a huntsman to the forest of a thousand questions are never heard of: it makes no difference miles, over which he has accidentally roamed in quest of whether the lands were obtained by purchase or conquest, prey Shall the liberal bounties of Providence to the whether by formal and regular treaty, or at the point of the race of man be monopolized by one of ten thousand for bayonet. The title of a patentee from the Crown would whom they were created? Shall the lordly savage not onave been as valid and incontrovertible, if the British Go-ly disdain the virtues and enjoyments of civilization himself,

H. OF R.]

Removal of the Indians.

[MAY 17, 1830.

every gentleman that they give the death blow to this new doctrine of Indian sovereignty. For, if the aborigines really possessed sovereign authority over the country, it was a direct and illegal encroachment upon their national rights for any other nation, or the subjects of any other na tion, to attempt to occupy any part of it, without permission. But, sir, the honorable gentleman from New York [Mr. STORRS] will, I suppose, treat the opinions I have read as he did those of Chancellor Kent, Mr. Dane, and some others, which were quoted by the honorable chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, [Mr. BELL.] Perceiv ing how directly those opinions were at war with the principles for which he is contending, the gentleman from New York endeavors to break their force and effect by telling us that they were obiter dicta-mere passing remarks-not solemn adjudications. Why, sir, the gentleman certainly forgets where he is. We are not in a court of law. We do not refer to decisions of courts as binding upon us; but the opinions of judges, and of all other gentlemen of distinguished talents, are certainly entitled to weight in our deliberations,

but shall he control the civilization of a world?" And, I was settled by the Europeans; and it will readily occur to after proceeding with a series of questions, forcibly and elegantly expressed, and so framed as to expose the absurdity of the doctrine against which he was contending, the speaker thus beautifully answers them: "No, generous philanthropists! Heaven has not been thus inconsistent in the works of its hands! Heaven has not thus placed at irreconcilable strife its moral laws with its physical creation! The pilgrims of Plymouth obtained their right of possession to the territory on which they settled, by titles as fair and unequivocal as any human property can be held. By their voluntary association they recognised their allegiance to the Government of Britain; and in process of time received whatever powers and authorities could be conferred upon them by a charter from their sovereign. The spot on which they fixed had belonged to an Indian tribe, totally extirpated by that devouring pestilence which had swept the country before their arrival. The territory thus free from all exclusive possession, they might have taken by the natural right of occupancy. Desirous, however, of giving ample satisfaction to every presence of prior right by solemn and formal conventions with the chiefs of the neighboring tribes they acquired the further security of a purchase." This, sir, is the very doctrine for which I am contending. The Indians held their lands by virtue of their possession; their fields and houses belonged to them on account of their personal labor which they had bestowed on them; but Mr. Adams, while he bestowed merited praise on the fathers of New England for their anxiety to give ample satisfaction to the natives, expressly asserts that "they might have taken possession of the vacant land, the territory free from all exclusive possession, by the natural right of occupancy."

But I will meet the gentleman on his own ground; and as nothing but adjudicated cases is regarded by him as competent authority, I beg leave to refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Johnson vs. McIntosh, (8 Wheaton's Rep.) And, sir, when I remember the tribute, as equivalent as it was just, which was paid a few weeks ago by my friend from Connecticut [Mr. HUNTINGTON] to the venerable jurist at the head of that court, I feel that this decision will not, at least by some gentlemen here, be lightly esteemed. In delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Marshall says: To this opinion of Mr. Adams, I beg leave to add that" While the different nations of Europe respected the right of a gentleman of the bar, whose name I am unable to give, but who is stated by the Rev. Dr. Morse to be an eminent lawyer. In 1821, Dr. Morse was appointed by the War Department to obtain information as to the state and condition of the Indian tribes generally; and with his report, which he has published, he compilest his opinion, and which seems to have been given in a case stated relative to the nature of Indian titles to their lands:

of the natives, as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves, and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil, while yet in possession of the natives. These grants have been understood by all to convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy. The history of America, from its discovery to the present day, proves, we think, the universal recognition of "The European settlers of this country," says this gen- these principles." After speaking of Spain and Portugal, tleman, "claimed to have a right to appropriate it to them- as resting their claims to portions of this continent on disselves; and the mildest and least exceptionable form in covery, the court proceeds: "France also founded her which they exercised that right, was, to treat the abori- title to the vast territory she claimed in America, on discoginal inhabitants as entitled to a limited or qualified pro- very. However conciliatory her conduct may have been, perty, a right to occupy and enjoy under certain modifica- she still asserted her right of dominion over a great ex tions, but with no power to convey nor indeed to do any tent of country not actually settled by Frenchmen, and other act of ownership. The right of soil, or the absolute the exclusive right to acquire and dispose of the soil which property, and the jurisdiction over it, were, in the mean remained in the occupation of Indians." Again: "No one time, deemed to belong to the sovereign or State under of the powers of Europe gave its full assent to this princiwhose authority the discovery and settlement were made, ple more unequivocally than England." And, after stating and to the grantees of such sovereign or State. The in- the different grants, patents, and charters, granted by the terest of the soil carried with it the right to buy off, or King of Great Britain to different companies, the court otherwise remove, the incumbrance, which right, as re- adds, "Thus has our whole country been granted by the spected the sovereign or State, was of course full and ab- Crown while in the occupation of the Indians.”_ _With resolute, but, as respected individuals, was subject to such gard to the territory ceded by Virginia to the United restrictions as might be thought fit to be imposed, either States, the Chief Justice says: "The ceded territory was by general legislation, or by terms annexed to the respect- occupied by numerous and warlike tribes of Indians; but ive grants." At the revolution the rights of territory and the exclusive right of the United States to extinguish their jurisdiction, which belonged to the foreign sovereign, and title, and to grant the soil, has never, we believe, been such sovereign rights as had been granted by him to indi-doubted." Again: "The United States, then, have uneviduals or bodies, became vested in the States of this Union quivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by which within whose limits the territory lay. Among the rights its civilized inhabitants now hold this country. They hold, which thus became vested in the States, was the sovereign authority over the lands inhabited by the Indians within their bounds, and not yet become the subject of individual ownership or claim. It comprehended the right of soil, the jurisdiction, and the exclusive authority to purchase, or otherwise extinguish, the qualified property of the Indians."

Such are the principles upon which this vast continent

and assert in themselves, the title by which it was acquired They maintain, as all others have maintained, that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest, and gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty as the circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise."

"If the discovery be made, and possession of the country be taken, under the authority of an existing government,

MAY 17, 1830.]

66

Removal of the Indians.

The very grant of a charter is an assertion of the title of the Crown."

[H. OF R.

which is acknowledged by the emigrants, it is supposed | knowledge themselves to be under the protection of the to be equally well settled that the discovery was made for United States, and of no other sovereign whatever." This the whole nation, that the country becomes a part of the is not the language of the Indians; for although some of nation, and that the vacant soil is to be disposed of by that their chiefs signed the treaty, it was undoubtedly dictated organ of the Government which has the constitutional power by the United States' commissioners. These Indians were to dispose of the national domains; by that organ in which in the bounds of the States of North and South Carolina all vacant territory is vested by law. and Georgia. The only power which Congress then had "So far as respects the authority of the Crown, no dis- in matters of this kind, was to manage the affairs of the tinction was taken between vacant lands and lands occu-Indians, so that the legislative rights of the States should pied by the Indians. The title, subject only to the right not be violated.” And yet, by this treaty, the United of occupancy by the Indians, was admitted to be in the States are constituted the sole sovereigns over these InKing, as was his right to grant that title. dians. Was not the legislative power of the State set at complete defiance ? But let us examine this guaranty. The treaty of Holston, in which it is contained, was And, sir, on examination, it will be found that most of made in 1791. Here the United States again obtained these grants convey both soil and the right of dominion to from the Cherokees the acknowledgment that they were the grantees. Hence arose the colonial governments. under their sole protection, and of no other sovereign The colonies were a part of the empire, but, under their whatever; and then they solemnly guarantied to them all grants or charters, they had the right to government and their lands not ceded. Here let me inquire what was the jurisdiction within their limits. Accordingly, we find object and meaning of this guaranty. Does any gentlemany of them at an early period of their history making man believe it was designed to authorize the Cherokees to laws for the government of the Indians within their re-organize or establish an independent Government? Can any spective bounds, and governing them as completely as the one seriously pretend that such a thing was contemplated, whites. Nor do we learn that this right was ever contest- either by the United States' commissioners, or by the Ined. Some of the colonies (among them Georgia) having dians? Such an opinion will not be hazarded. The uta vast extent of country within their limits occupied by most extent to which this guaranty was intended to go, Indians, and but a very sparse population, did not attempt was to secure the Indians in the possession of their lands. to exercise this power. This, however, was a question of This idea of an independent Government is of recent expediency merely; and a failure to exert the power is no date. The right of the Indians to form it, and claim the argument against the right. protection of the United States, under the treaty of HolSuch was the situation of affairs at the revolution. By stou, never suggested itself until Georgia threatened to exthe declaration of independence, the colonies declared that tend the operation of her laws over that part of her terthey were "free, sovereign, and independent States." ritory in the possession of the Cherokees. Then it was Whatever right of dominion or sovereignty then existed in that a delegation from that tribe came on to this city, Great Britain, passed to the States, on the establishment and applied to the President to protect them against the of their independence. By the treaty of peace this inde-operation of the Georgia laws. And it was in answer pendence was acknowledged; the boundaries of the thir- to this application that the President gave the answer teen States were specified; and all the country included which the gentleman from New York complains of, and within the specified limits was within some one of the States: characterizes as arbitrary and despotic. He says that there was nothing yielded to them as a consolidated republic. They were not only independent of Great Britain, but of each other, and were under no obligation to each other, further than the solemn pledge in the declaration of independence, and the articles of Union and confederation. If there had been no confederation, each State would have possessed within its limits all the rights which before belonged to the Crown or the colonial Government; and these have been shown to have been full and ample.

the President should have waited for Congress; that it was our province to have decided on this subject, and his, to execute the laws of the land, one of the highest of which was the treaty. Sir, one who knew nothing of the facts in this case, and had only heard them as disclosed by the gentleman, would have supposed that the President was entirely a volunteer; that on coming into office he had heard of the intention of Georgia to exercise her right to extend the operation of her laws over the whole of her I come now, sir, to that part of this subject which is territory, and that he had forthwith told the Cherokees considered the most interesting-the treaties made by the they must remove; that the laws of civilized man would United States with the Cherokees, and the guaranty con- soon be enforced against them, by which they would be tained in the treaty of Holston. This, sir, is the strong grievously oppressed; and that although he had found in ground of our adversaries. Here the Cherokees have some old treaty a guaranty by which the Government were planted their standard, and run up the flag of indepen- bound to protect them, yet he should pay no regard to it; dence, with UNITED STATES' GUARANTY," in- and if they would not remove, he should leave them to scribed in staring capitals. Sir, I am not to be alarmed by their fate. But was this the case! What, sir, is the history this guaranty, imposing as it may be considered. I shall of this matter? The legislature of Georgia, eighteen contend, and trust I shall be able to show, that the United months ago, asserted, by resolutions, her right to extend States had no right to make it ; and, if so, Georgia certainly her jurisdiction over the Cherokee country, and advised is not bound by it. Sir, there are other treaties besides a future Legislature to exercise this right the Indians that of Holston; there is one of prior date, entered into applied to the President, complaining of the designs of between thirteen independent States, of which Georgia Georgia, and asking the protection of the Federal Gowas one-I mean that constitution of which I have just vernment. Now, what should the President have done? been speaking, and to which this Government must look Make no reply-remain perfectly silent, or tell them he for its powers. In that instrument not only are these was not at liberty to give any opinion, not even to form one, powers specified, but the Government is prohibited from as to the intent of the treaty referred to? Is this the the exercise of powers not granted to it. But, sir, the course of conduct for a President of this republic to purFederal Government, very early after its formation, began sue? Would this have been like Andrew Jackson? "Sir, to evince a disposition, which its subsequent history has it would have been at variance with every act of his life more openly developed, to increase its powers. We have and every feature of his character. What, then, could he a striking instance of this in the treaty of Hopewell have done, other than that he did? The Indians had not the first treaty which it entered into with the Cherokees. been interrupted-there had been no attempts to drive In the second article of that treaty, "the Cherokees ac-them from their land, nor was this even threatened; and

VOL. VI.-130,