The

as such from the presence of the President and the department. agitators, who have been received with so much favor, in their farrago of frantic ravings presented to Congress, as a memorial (see Rep. doc. 162 of 26th Congress, 1st session, page 15), exclaim: "He comes as the chief of the Cherokees, offering to the American nation the hand of triendship. Can it be received? Can it be touched? Can it be looked upon but with abhorrence, red with the blood of his brethren ?" Mr. Ross demands of the Secretary of War to be confronted with the charge and the accusers. His friends are told "the evidence shall be produced in the progress of the investigation which has been instituted." But when urged to complete the investigation, that Mr. Ross "might have an opportunity of defending himself, and showing that the exparte statements, on which the charge was founded, were untrue" (see Senate doc. No. 347, present session, page 5), it does not seem that any investigation had been commenced. The Secretary replied, when pushed to the point, that "an investigation was unnecessary, so long as Mr. John Ross refused to have the murderers delivered up to justice." In page 9, of the Commissioner's report (same document), the charge then dwindles down to this: "He must be regarded as conniving at those acts; or, viewing his conduct in the most favorable light, as unable to protect the Indians under his charge, and unwilling to punish the assassins." "The conclusion is irresistible that he is particeps criminis"! "Under these circumstances he is excluded from all participation in the government." The flimsiness of this pretext for crushing an innocent man seems to us only equalled by its rancor. It will be obvious to any dispassionate observer that Mr. Ross, by looking into this affair, would have exceeded his powers, and could not but have excited that "intestine commotion" in his country which the United States professes it should always be a paramount duty to prevent.

Once more, gentlemen, we most respectfully ask you to compare the proscription which the United States Government officers ascribe to us, with that which we have here shown from your own documents to have been practised against us by the officers of the Government of the United States.

It would involve us in refutations interminable were we to meet every misstatement in the documents before us. The almost exclusive scope of the representations on our affairs would seem to be to create false showings under which the United States may justify unwarrantable demands. Meetings are described, and resolutions are reported, which make a mighty figure on paper here in Washington; but have never been seen excepting here, and excepting upon paper. Serious allegations are made, without even a shadow of evidence being tendered in their support. For example: When General Arbuckle, in document 347, page 21, says of Mr. Ross, "He has now attached to him (as I believe) a number of the most cunning speculators of the new emigrants, and some of the old settlers, who desire to profit by his assistance in passing their accounts or claims," is not this meaning too much and saying too little? Ought not the general to have shown why he believed what he can find, we assure him, no foundation for in fact? Equally indefensible is the attempt of General Arbuckle, in the same letter which contains this injury, to frame another, but from materials so vague, that it is only in the anomalous document purporting to be a memorial, and which we have already quoted, that we have been able to detect what he really intended. He transmits to the department a copy of the decree deposing Brown and Rodgers; and, also, the act of union which he

says passed on the 12th of July, and reports under that date, with the sig nature of John Looney and others; and he says that, from these papers, with the rest, the department can judge of "the character of Mr. Ross for veracity." In the memorial of the agitators, to which we have referred (see page 10 of Rep. doc. No. 162), a great clamor is raised against the "recreant chief, John Looney," and insinuations are cast against John Ross, because on the 12th of July, when the act of union is dated, bearing John Looney's signature, this western chief was acting with his former coadju tors, whom he did not quit till the latter part of August. That John Looney did not sign the act of union till the 23d of August is perfectly true. It is equally true that the date (August 23) specially affixed to his signature, is omitted in the copy of the act sent to the department by General Arbuckle, though affixed to the original, and so published officially by the Cherokees. Is it fair to make such an omission, for which General Arbuckle would seem the only one really responsible, the ground of so serious an imputation, and that uttered by the general himself? The act of union was submitted to the national convention on the 12th of July. It was sent to certain western Cherokees, then holding an assembly apart from the great majority of the nation. After deliberate consideration, and after the signature of the act which deposed Brown and Rodgers, and which their appeal for the military invasion of the country forced upon the people, then it was that John Looney signed the act of union, and then it was that he and many of his constituents identified themselves with the majority; annexing to their signatures the precise date (August 23) of the day on which they were added to the former ones. We deny another imputation asserted in General Arbuckle's letter (see page 21 of Senate document 347). The General says that most of those who signed what is called Looney's decree, deposing Brown and Rodgers, thought they were only remonstrating against a white Governor. For this there is not a shadow of foundation.

It would leave our communication incomplete, were we to close it without some notice of a remark contained in the intemperate paper presented to Congress as a memorial, and to which we have in some previous pas sages alluded. That paper represents of the bulk of our nation from the east of the Mississippi, that on their arrival "they found the west Cherokees with a settled government, and laws and officers duly appointed to administer them." We will, as rapidly as possible, state exactly how the bulk of the eastern Cherokees found the government of the west circumstanced when they arrived, and what afterward became of that govern

ment.

It will be necessary to explain in the outset, how the western representatives and rulers were elected, under their own laws.

There were three chiefs, elected by the national council, or representatives of the people. The national counsellors were elected for two years; the three chiefs for four. The allotted term of service of the counsellors expired by law in August, 1839, at which time there should have been a new election. The term of service of the chiefs expired in October, 1839, which also was the period for a new election of chiefs; the law requiring the new election always to be simultaneous with the close of the old term. It so happened that when the bulk of the nation arrived from the east of the Mississippi, the western people and their government seemed to be standing still, as if astounded by vague expectations of some strange event.

The principal chief of the western Cherokees, Jolly, had died in December, 1838. The next chief, Brown, some time before this had sent in his resignation. There was, in fact, but one chief legally in power, and whose power could not of itself expire till October, 1839. That one chief was John Looney.

Presently after the arrival of the eastern Cherokees, the ex western chief (Brown) called a private and informal meeting of the western national council. About one-half the members attended: when complete, the council consisted of sixteen. The eight thus informally convened, as informally nominated Brown to fill the vacancy, till the following October, created by the death of Jolly, the principal chief; thus overstepping John Looney (the legal incumbent), but creating him second chief, and appointing John Rodgers third chief. It was fully understood that these measures were sanctioned by General Arbuckle. Subsequently the meeting at Double Springs (or Ta-ka-to-kah) was called, which professed to welcome the eastern Cherokees, but to claim them as subjects. This assembly took place in June. On the following August, when the term for electing a new national council arrived, no election was attempted. Hence, after the month of August there were no representatives of the western Cherokees authorized by law. It was in this very month of August, which ended the term of the representatives, that the chiefs informally elected by eight western Cherokees were formally deposed; not, as has been stated, by the "council of Mr. Ross," but by their own constituents who had assembled apart. These western constituents, having signed the act deposing the two objectionable chiefs, went over, headed by John Loony, Aaron Price, and others, to the majority, who, having assumed in the interval when no government remained the right of acting for themselves, now completed the act of union. After this they adopted a constitution, organized a new legislature, passed laws, and established the present regular government. Meanwhile John Rodgers, one of the deposed western chiefs, linked himself with the treaty party, and made his headquarters mostly at Fort Gibson, with General Arbuckle. John Brown, the other western chief, is mentioned by the Indian Commissioner, in his report, document 347, page 4 (on the inform ation of General Arbuckle), as having "gone to Mexico in search of a new country for himself and his friends." The general's letter, declaring this, is given at length in page 27 of the same document. But a letter in page 40 of the same document, from one of John Brown's partisans (George W. Adair), addressed to his friends, J. A. Bell and Stand Watie, represents their late coadjutor (John Brown) very differently. Adair says "Brown has deserted his country, and gone to seek an asylum in Mexico."

Notwithstanding the steady and successful march of the now-united nation toward a composure of all the troubles of the country, and the establishment of a liberal constitution and patriarchat laws, the wreck of the small party of agitators, still sustained by General Arbuckle, continued to act as if they had authority. In October, 1839, although, as we have shown, there had been no elections to authorize a council competent to create chiefs and transact business, these individuals called a public meeting at Ta-ka-to-kah. About forty or fifty persons appeared, and these mostly of the Schermerhorn treaty party, among whom were a few old settlers. A number of these clubbed together, voted themselves a council, and this informal club, self-dignified with a popular title, elected Dutch, Rogers, and Smith, their chiefs. The rest of the nation looked on the

whole affair with utter indifference; nor would it ever have risen into remembrance, but for the consequence given to it by the support of General Arbuckle.

It is to this factitious council that the Indian Commissioner alludes in page 3 of his report to the Secretary of War, contained in Senate document No. 347, 26th Congress, 1st session, and of whom the Commissioner states: "On the 5th of November a decree was adopted at a 'national council, in general council convened,' of the old settlers, denouncing the proceedings of Mr. Ross and his party, which are declared null and void; protesting against the transaction of any business by the Ross delegation now in this city, with the Government, for or on behalf of the Cherokee Nation; declaring that no act of theirs shall be binding; and that no money, belonging to the Cherokee Nation, in the shape of national funds, shall or can be drawn from the United States Government, or its officers, without authority given and empowered by the national council, and the same sanctioned by the chiefs."

Having thus candidly explained the manner in which what is thus selfstyled a "national council, in general council convened," was got up and continued, it is scarcely necessary to remark upon its monstrous pretensions. It was from this same pretended council that, as the Indian Commissioner reports (see document 347, already quoted, page 3), "an application was, late in November, addressed by the chiefs, Rodgers, Smith, and Dutch, through the agent and superintendent, to the department, which was received on the 28th December, requesting that a delegation of five might be permitted to visit Washington to represent their grievances, and meet the Ross delegation at the seat of Government." "They were informed," adds the Commissioner, under date of 2d January, "that this was thought to be unnecessary; that the Cherokee difficulties were understood, and that the Government would do what was right and proper under the circumstances." Yet, notwithstanding they were so informed, they came to Washington, and have sent to Congress, in the shape of a memorial, the document we have already noticed more than once. It is a tissue of misrepre sentations against us and our country, and a mass of extravagant claims, calculated to destroy all hope of peace among us for ever, if supported by the authorities here, as the signers have been in the west, where Fort Gibson has been their leading place of rendezvous, and its commandant apparently their principal director. It may be further remarked upon General Arbuckle's praise of this party, and of their leaders, as "all respectable men;" that Smith, one of the now self-styled chiefs, is the very person against whom, awhile previous, General Arbuckle called upon Mr. Ross to take proceedings, under the charge that he was collecting a body of men, by subscription, to attack Fort Wayne. The reports were examined, and found to be false. The accuser fled; and it was not long before Smith appeared (under the patronage of General Arbuckle) as one of the heads of what the General is pleased to regard as the legitimate government of the Cherokees. At the career of John Rogers, the other pretended chief, we f have glanced already. Dutch, who heads the triumvirate, identified himself with the majority of the nation in the earlier measures of the convention. He probably is under guidance now; and not understanding English, may not be thoroughly familiar with all he is used to sanction.

We trust we have shown, in the preceding exposition, and satisfactorily, that if there is any foundation for the so often-reiterated charge that a gov

ernment in the west has been usurped, we are not the usurpers. We have thought it due to our country to put you in possession of the facts upon this point, as well as upon others. We regret that the multiplicity of the slanders artfully disseminated against us, has compelled ns to detain you so long on our affairs; but ere we dismiss this subject, we will crave your continued patience while we add a few words in relation to our actual position at this moment.

The persons professing to be a western delegation, in their memorial which forms Representative document No. 162 of the present session, claim for the minority of the nation, who were established in the west prior to the arrival of the great bulk of the people recently, the right to hold the new comers, no matter what their numbers, "subject to their laws and their officers" (see page 3), because "their numbers could not affect their rights, nor impair those of the people to whom they thus came. They came," continues the memorial, "under the treaty provisions to join their brethren. If they came in such numbers," it proceeds, "as to constitute a majority, there would be less reason for their insisting on having a government of their own, or on putting down the existing government and establishing a new one; for, being a majority of the people they thus joined, they could elect, when the period came on, whom they pleased." We would here beg you to remark, gentlemen, that, before the period prescribed for such an election, the western minority, had its schemes not have been thwarted, would have possessed itself of all moneys due to the Cherokee Nation," and then what would have been the situation of the majority, robbed of the public purse by those who were claiming to bring them under subjection? The proof of the attempt to seize the national treasure will be found in Executive Rep. document No. 2, pages 355, No. 1. If any doubt could arise as to the extent of this design upon our money, it will vanish on reference to Senate document No. 347, pages 16 and 17, where, in Nos. 4 and 5, what the real plot was is more boldly explained, and still sought to be carried. No. 5 exhibits the device for eventually buying up the majority with its own money. It may be remarked, at the same time, that the crisis might have seemed a peculiarly appropriate one for the purpose. It would have found us in a state of the most galling destitution. A large portion of our people had, in our original country, through the extraordinary circumstances of our capture, lost their all; and, on arriving at the country whither we were forced, they were rendered more destitute than ever of the means of creating new homes by the want of even health and strength. The advances made to some of them by the commissioners on account of improvement claims, had been so meager as rather to exasperate than relieve their wasted condition. Many were without axes to cut logs for cabins, having been forced away too abruptly to gather their farming implements; and they had now no power to supply their loss. When they pressed for the payment of their various individual claims, every inquiry concerning the moneys expected to have been forwarded to the United States agents was answered evasively and mysteriously. Their suffering, through scantiness of food, night have been mitigated had they retained the means of supplying themselves from the chase; but the arms taken from them by the military east of the Mississippi, and the restoration of which in the west. was promised, were not, and have not yet been, delivered; nor can we obtain any knowledge whatever of what has become of them. Of the extreme dissatisfaction created by these untoward circumstances we forbear to speak, but will return to the point whence we went back.