H. OF R.]

Indian Question.

[FEB. 21, 1831.

lution of the 16th of September, 1776, for providing recited; and it is improper, in this case, to allow a charge bounty lands for the soldiers who might enlist in the con- against the specie requisitions of Congress which may tinental army. That resolution says: "Such lands to be hereafter be made, especially as said State stands charged provided by the United States, and whatever expense to the United States for very considerable sums of money shall be necessary to procure such lands, the said expense loaned. And, 3d. Because the fifth proviso or condition shall be paid and borne by the States, in the same pro- before recited contains a special guaranty of territorial portion as the other expenses of the war." Now, if these rights, and such a guaranty as has not been made by Conwaste lands had been considered the property of the con- gress to any State, and which, considering the spirit and federation, a direct appropriation of them would have meaning of the confederation, must be unnecessary or imbeen made, particularly as the object of bestowing them proper. But the committee are of opinion that the first, in bounty would have derived considerable support from second, and fourth provisoes before recited, and also the a desirable designation of them. But, for the purpose of third, with some variations, may be admitted; and that, further enforcing his view of the subject, he would refer should the said State extend the bounds of her cession, the House to an act passed by the Legislature of Georgia and vary the terms thereof, as hereinafter mentioned, Conon the 1st day of February, 1788, proposing a cession of gress may accept the same; whereupon, they submit the a large portion of her western lands; a cession which he following resolutions:

exceedingly rejoiced had not been accepted by the Fede- "That the cession of claims to western territory, offered ral Government, as, by it the western limit of the State by the State of Georgia, cannot be accepted on the terms would have been drawn within the northernmost point of contained in her act passed the 1st of February last. the thirty-third degree of north latitude. But he would "That, in ease the said State shall authorize her delerefer more particularly to the conditions proposed by gates in Congress to make a cession of all her territorial Georgia, and the reasons of their rejection by the con- claims to lands west of the river Appalachicola, or west federated Government of the Union. The proposition of of a meridian line running through or near the point Georgia, after describing the country offered for cession, where that river intersects the thirty-first degree of north states the following conditions: 1st. "That the United latitude, and shall omit the last proviso in her said act, States in Congress assembled shall guaranty to the citizens and shall so far vary the proviso respecting the sum of of the said territory a republican form of Government, $171,428 45-90, expended in quieting and resisting the subject only to such change as shall take place in the Indians, as that the said State shall have credit in the federal constitution of the United States. 2dly. That the specie requisitions of Congress to the amount of her spenavigation of all the rivers included in the said cession cie quota on the past requisitions, and for the residue shall be equally free to all the citizens of the United in her account with the United States for moneys loaned, States; nor shall any tonnage on vessels, nor any duties Congress will accept the cession."

whatever, be laid on any goods, wares, or merchandise It appeared strange to his mind, that any one could that may pass up and down the said waters, unless for the doubt, after an examination of this report, the absolute mere benefit of the United States. 3dly. That the sum right of the States to all the unlocated territories within of $171,428 45-90, which has been expended in quieting their limits. It might be asked why it was unnecessary the minds of the Indians, and resisting their hostilities, or improper to require of Congress a guaranty of the reshall be allowed as a charge against the United States, maining territory. To this it was a sufficient answer to and be admitted in payment of the specie requisition of say, that the committee must have based the refusal on that State's quotas that have been or may be required by the clause of the ninth article of confederation, which he the United States. 4thly. That, in all cases where the had already quoted, namely, "that no State shall be deState may require defence, the expenses arising thereon prived of territory for the benefit of the United States." shall be allowed as a charge against the United States, Nor is it unimportant to state that the identical land now agreeably to the articles of confederation. And, 5thly. occupied by the Cherokees within the limits of Georgia, That Congress shall guaranty and secure all the re- is a portion of the territory which the committee of Conmaining territorial rights of the State, as pointed out and gress stated would be retained by that State, if the terms expressed by the definitive treaty of peace between the of cession proposed by her should be adopted. United States and Great Britain, the convention between But the doctrine contended for is further sustained by the said State and the State of South Carolina, entered the fact, that the cession previously made by Virginia of into the 28th day of April, 1787, and the clause of an act her northwestern territory was coupled with a reservaof the said State of Georgia, describing the boundaries tion of the land between the Scioto and Miami, for satisthereof, passed the 17th of February, 1783." fying bounty warrants issued, and to be issued, to the

But what was the answer of the committee to these officers and soldiers of the State line in the revolutionary propositions-an answer in which Congress acquiesced' army. Nor was the cession afterwards made by North Not that the territory in question belongs already to us; Carolina, now constituting the State of Tennessee, unnot that all the vacant land in any of the States was ac- coupled with conditions of a similar character. And the quired by the common blood and treasure, and is there-State of Connecticut, relying on her territorial rights, as fore the common property of the Union; but, "The com- secured by charter, derived, at a much later period, a conmittee, having fully considered the subject referred to siderable sum from her reserve west of the Ohio. Having them, are of opinion that the cession offered by the State brought these facts and arguments to the consideration of Georgia cannot be accepted on the terms proposed. of the House, he hoped we should not again hear of the 1st. Because it appears highly probable that, on running right of the United States to the unlocated land in the the boundary line between that State and the adjoining respective States, as a common fund for paying the debts State or States, a claim to a large tract of country, ex- and defraying the expenses of the Union, on the ground tending to the Mississippi, and lying between the tract that they were acquired in the revolutionary war as the proposed to be ceded and that lately ceded by South Caro- common property of the confederation. He knew very Ina, will be retained by the said State of Georgia; and, there- well that Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island were fore, the land which the State now offers to cede must the most strenuous advocates of the right of the Union to be too far removed from any other lands hitherto ceded land thus situated; but, notwithstanding they exerted to the Union, to be of any immediate advantage to it. themselves to procure the incorporation of such a princi 2d. Because there appears to be due from the State of ple into the articles of confederation as a prerequisite to Georgia, on specie requisitions, but a small part of the their ratification of them, they finally ratified without it. sum mentioned in the third proviso or condition before But it might be proper for him to state that the two latter

States, in the instructions which they gave to their delegates in Congress, distinctly disclaimed for the Union any Jurisdiction over such lands. Well, then, might it excite surprise, that, at this late day, they should be among the foremost to insist on such jurisdiction.

He thought he had now fully answered the objection, that the waste lands were acquired as the common fund of the Union, and that the declaration or recognition of American independence regarded these States solely in their confederative, and not in their individual character. But, in further illustration of the doctrine which he maintained, he might have adverted to the jurisdiction exercised by nearly all the colonies over the Indian tribes within their respective limits.

[H. OF R.

They consist in the power of making and enforcing laws over all and every description of persons within her limits. If this be true, and how it can be denied he could not understand, it necessarily follows that every Indian tribe resident within a State is a member of the State, within the meaning of the first clause conferring the power relative to Indians, and in this sense he believed it had been acted on in a great majority of the old thirteen States, and should have been so acted on in all.

But

So much, then, for the present, as respects the power of the confederation to "regulate trade and all affairs with the Indians." But to return to the treaty-making power, and its reference to Indians, as we find it interpreted by the acts of the confederation. We find in the journal of He might have spoken of laws enacted by one, giving their proceedings various compacts or agreements with a premium for Indian scalps, and for the rearing of dogs Indians, which are not now, and never have been, treaties. to hunt them down, which he believed the honorable gen- He might be asked why he made the assertion. To which tleman from Massachusetts could not deny had been done he would answer, that while all the treaties with foreign by his own State within the period of her colonial exist- nations, even that concluded with the kingdom or empire ence. He might have spoken of their being transported of Morocco, were solemnly ratified according to the proby another colony beyond seas, and sold for slaves. visions of the articles of confederation, no such solemnity How another had restrained their liberty, by forbidding was ever conferred upon a compact or agreement made their going from home after a certain hour at night, with- with an Indian tribe, during that whole period. In what out a pass or permit from a white man, under the penalty light, then, must we view these compacts; and under what of corporal punishment. Of the act passed by Pennsyl- specific power must Congress have considered them to vania in 1743, adding for criminal jurisdiction all the wild have been made? Surely, under the power to regulate country of that colony to the county of Philadelphia; trade and manage the affairs with the Indian tribes. and how that act, as he had recently understood, on the if a correct definition of the legislative rights of States had highest authority, had been enforced upon an Indian the been laid down by him, it follows, incontestibly, that the following year, for manslaughter committed in a remote treaty of Hopewell, so called, upon which the changes corner of the country thus annexed to that county. He have been rung from one end of the Union to the other, might have adverted to the jurisdiction exercised within violated the legislative rights of the States of North and a few years past upon an Indian within the limits of New South Carolina and Georgia. Congress, too, seems to have York; but if the facts and principles presented by him been sensible of this; for, in the proclamation issued by be correct, and he did not doubt it, it could not be neces- them in the year 1788, for enforcing it, they close with sary to go into such particulars. He should not refer to the proviso, "that nothing contained in this proclamation them in this cursory manner for the purpose of inquiring shall be considered as affecting the territorial claims of into their propriety or impropriety. He would leave that North Carolina." Nor can it be asserted that Georgia to be settled by the consciences of those who had pre-stood quietly by while these things were transacting. So sumed to question the conduct of Georgia for the execu- early as the 11th of February, 1786, the House of Repretion of a Cherokee Indian for the murder of another Che-sentatives, having taken into consideration the "pretended rokee Indian. He would not be understood as referring treaty," as they called it, and called it justly, entered into to them for the purpose of examining the comparative at Hopewell with the Cherokees in 1785, and the attempt cruelty of Georgia and other States, as, among the wise to enter into a treaty at Galphinton with the Creeks about and good, he had too much confidence in the belief that the same period, determined that, in doing so, the "comblood will not be considered as sticking to her skirts for missioners did attempt to exercise powers that are not dethe execution of a murderer. legated by the respective States to the United States in But, since it has suited the convenience of politicians of Congress assembled." After setting forth the rights and a certain order to rail against Georgia, we have been stun- privileges of the States, they resolve "that all and every ned by the cry of violations of the treaty-making power. act and thing done, or intended to be done, within the It is, therefore, necessary to inquire what is that power, limits of this State, by the said commissioners, inconsistent and wherein has it been violated? And, before proceed with the beforementioned rights and privileges, shall be, ing further with the subject, it is necessary to state that and the same are hereby, declared null and void." this power was nearly the same under the confederation But, before proceeding further, it would be proper for that it is under the constitution since adopted; and to as-him to state that the course which Congress pursued relacertain its extent and meaning in relation to Indians, it be- tive to the agreements or contracts called Indian treaties, comes necessary to inquire in what manner it was exer- shows most manifestly that they considered such contracts cised, if exercised at all, in our intercourse with them. as falling within the power to regulate trade and affairs But it would be quite as convenient to state the treaty- with the Indian tribes, and not within the treaty-making making power, and the power regulating our intercourse power. And if his definition of the legislative power of a with the Indian tribes, ander the articles of confederation. State was correct, and he did not fear contradiction, ConIn the ninth article, among various other powers, it is pro-gress had, by the terms of such contracts with tribes living vided that "the United States in Congress assembled shall within any of the States, violated those "legislative rights" have the sole and exclusive power of entering into treaties they intended to be secured and defended by the articles and alliances." This is coupled with a proviso protecting of confederation. But his opinions might derive additional the commercial power of the States as it then existed. It confirmation by referring to the second article, which prois further provided in the same article, that "the United vides, "each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and inStates in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclu- dependence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, sive right and power of regulating the trade and managing which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to all the affairs of the Indian tribes, not members of any of the the United States in Congress assembled." States; provided the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated." Let us, then, consider, first, what are the legislative rights of a State.

He had shown that Congress never considered itself authorized to make treaties with Indians residing within the limits of a State, for they never treated their contracts

H. OF R.]

Indian Question.

[FEB. 21, 1831.

intend to say that they were without obligation in some form upon this Government. What he meant to say, was, that no treaty with the Indians, or others, can convey away the soil, or trammel the constitutional sovereignty of a State, both which consequences would follow that gentleman's interpretation of them.

with them as such. He thought it was equally clear that merce with foreign nations, also prescribes by whom it they had no power whatsoever over them, in that or any shall be regulated among the States, and with the Indian other way, inasmuch as such power not only was not ex-tribes. In the view which he had presented, it would be pressly delegated, but was expressly reserved by the clause obvious that a provision respecting Indians would not have in the ninth article, which provides that the power to regu- been necessary, and he had no doubt would not have been late trade and manage affairs with the Indian tribes shall adopted, if there had not been such tribes residing beyond not extend to such as are members of a State; but further, the limits of the States. But whether his opinion be corand "that the legislative right of a State within its own rect or not, the advocates of Indian rights cannot shelter limits be not infringed or violated." Surely it could not themselves under this power, without subverting the rights be necessary for him to recapitulate his arguments, to show of the States, and converting this confederation into a conthat the charters defined the limits of the respective States, solidated Government. For if the terms of the grant give and that their legislative rights extended over all persons to the Federal Government exclusive jurisdiction over the within those limits. But he was aware that it might be Indians, they give jurisdiction equally exclusive over the objected, that, by the provisions of the federal constitu- States; for they are precisely of the same import in relation, the powers of this Government had been enlarged. tion to each. But it may not be improper to refer to the He was very much mistaken if he could not show by the operation of the power, not only the power but the right most legitimate arguments, that, with respect to Indians, of the States, in making up their representative numbers, they had not been thus enlarged. The provisions of the to include Indians who are taxed; for the exclusion of Inconstitution resorted to by the adversaries of Georgia, who dians not taxed is a clear inclusion of those who are taxed. are alike the opponents of the present administration of He did not know that any Indians, in any one of the States, the Federal Government, are the treaty-making power had been taxed previous to the formation of the constituand the commercial power. At least, he was not aware tion, or even since; but it conveys an undoubted right so that such rights were claimed for the Indians, except un- to tax them. If this high sovereign power of taxation may der the operation of these two powers. Perhaps he might be exercised over them, in what particular, then, can they say they are claimed singly and alone under the treaty-be exempted from any and every act of sovereignty which making power. But let us see what are these provisions a State may rightfully exercise over her white inhabitants? of the constitution. In the eighth section of the first arti- The gentleman from Massachusetts had laid great stress cle, power is conferred on Congress "to regulate com- on the obligation of treaties with the Indians. He did not merce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." And in the second section of the second article, which defines the power of the President, it is provided, that "he shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. In the second section of the first article, it is provided, in Georgia had not acquiesced in what she considered the the clause relating to the ratio of representation, that it usurpations of the Federal Government, as growing out of shall include "the whole number of free persons, includ- its contracts with Indian tribes. He had already adverted ing those bound to service for a term of years, and exclud- to the protest, in 1787, against the treaties of Hopewell ing Indians not taxed," &c.-applying the treaty-making and Galphinton, and would now call the attention of the power to Indian tribes within a State in the light in which House to a similar, but more elaborate and detailed prohe had considered them; and it was utterly impossible to test, adopted on the 9th of February, 1797, against the consider them as falling within its operation; for in this treaties before mentioned, and all others since made with particular he considered the tenth article of the amend-the different tribes, including the treaty of Colerain, conments equally as broad as the second article of confede- cluded with the Creek Indians in the summer of 1796. ration which he had quoted. He knew an elaborate argu- Although this remonstrance did not prevent the ratifiment had been made to show that the absence of the word cation of the treaty of Colerain, it led to the adoption of "expressly" from that amendment went to enlarge the a proviso, to which he would refer. It provides that the powers of the Federal Government. But he did not be-treaty should not "affect any claim of the State of Georlieve any man, not desirous to gain power by every practi- gia to the right of pre-emption in the land therein set cable contrivance, would rely upon such an interpretation. apart for military or trading posts, or to give to the United By a fair rule of construction, that term in the second arti-States, without the consent of the said State, any right to cle of confederation was as applicable to the second as the the soil, or to the exclusive legislation over the same, or first member of the sentence; and its absence from the any other right than that of establishing trading posts withamendment applies equally to the second as to the first in the Indian territory mentioned in those articles, as long member of that amendment. If he should be asked by as the frontier of Georgia may require those establish what rule of construction he arrived at this conclusion, he ments." From that period until the compact of 1802, would answer, if the amendment contained the word ex- there seems to have been no other exercise of power by pressly in the first member of it, it would be understood as the United States with the Indians in Georgia, nor protest belonging equally to the second. Thus, "the powers not on her part against it. By that compact, Georgia ceded (expressly) delegated to the United States by the consti- large portion of her territory, and the United States' ceded tution, nor (expressly) prohibited by it to the States," &c. to her all "claim to soil and jurisdiction" within the limits Thus, if the absence of the term enlarges the first member which the State then reserved for her own use. of the amendment, it operates an equal enlargement of the But he did not place the title of Georgia on the terms second; and this shows, that, so far as the amendment is of that compact. It stood on higher ground. It was deconcerned, it places the constitution precisely on the foot-rived from the declaration of independence, as he had aling of the second article of confederation as to the power ready demonstrated. He had referred to the compact, to conferred on the Government by either. If he had shown meet objections which might arise in the mind of any (and he thought he had done so) that the treaty-making gentleman who might not agree with him in placing her power did not apply to Indians within a State, either un-title on the ground assumed by him. der the confederation or the present constitution, neither But the gentleman from Massachusetts accuses Georgia can the power contended for be derived from the clause of violating the intercourse law of 1802, and the Presiof the constitution which confers the commercial power. dent of countenancing its infraction by her. By that law, The same clause which relates to the regulation of com- it is distinctly provided that Indian communities, sur

a

FEB. 21, 1831.]

Indian Question.

[H. of R.

rounded by a white population, shall be excluded from its Georgia for notifying the Cherokees and others within the operation. Why was this done, if the States, respective- territory claimed by them within the limits of the State, ly, within which they resided, had not, and did not exer- that the laws of Georgia would be or were extended over cise jurisdiction over them? It was impossible to arrive that territory, on and after the 1st day of June, 1830. at any other conclusion. But it was of some importance He would not enter into any inquiries about the procla to compare the dates of that law with the date of the com- mations then issued. He would only say he had no doubt pact of 1802. The law was passed on the 30th of March, they were issued with the best intentions towards the and the compact was entered into on the 24th of April parties concerned. Nor has he been sparing of his censure following. If, then, in any view of the subject, Congress upon the President of the United States and the Governor had the power to except certain Indian communities from of Georgia, for the manner in which they have treated inthe operation of the law, was it not equally fair, by sur-truders on the gold lands lying within that State, and claimrendering all claim to soil and sovereignty within certained by the Cherokee Indians. If he understood the genlimits to Georgia, that the Indians within those limits should tleman, he represented the President and the Governor as be excluded from the operation of the law? The gentle-alone solicitous to prevent the Cherokees from digging man has objected to the compact with Georgia, as uncon- gold. If he was correct in this understanding, he could stitutional. Does he forget that new States may be formed tell the honorable gentleman that he was greatly mistaken. out of parts of those already existing, provided they give The instructions of the Governor to the agent sent by him their consent? And does he not know that such consent to the Cherokee nation last summer, and the manner of is not only given by Georgia, but given in the form of a their execution, go to show that it was intended to remove requisition on the Federal Government? But, perhaps, the gold diggers of every character and description whatthe gentleman considers the compact fair enough in what-soever. More than this, so far as the citizens of Georgia ever the General Government gains by it, and only unfair were concerned in that business, it was a well known fact, as its provisions may operate favorably to Georgia. The that they, in a formal manner, expressed their readiness gentleman from Massachusetts has told us that the Chero-to abandon it, provided the white men from other States, kee Government was adopted on the suggestion made to and the Indians, should be restrained from digging gold. their chiefs by Mr. Jefferson, in 1808 or 9; but does he Their view of the subject was a rational and correct one. not remember that no State can be formed within the While they, after being warned of the consequences, limits of another but by its consent? But suppose it be neither desired to embarrass the Government of Georgia, conceded that the Cherokee is a foreign Government ex-nor this Government, they said this precious metal is the isting within the limits of Georgia, what consequence common property of Georgia. We are her citizens, and would follow? That the Federal Government would be why should not we have part of it, while the citizens of bound to remove it. What is there to restrain such a other States and the Indians are dividing it among them? Government to the republican form? And yet every one We know that it has been solemnly decided by the Supreme knows that the constitution guaranties to every State a Court of the United States, that Georgia has a freehold republican form of Government. Then can any other right to all the land occupied by Indians within her limits. exist within the limits of a State? Most certainly not. Nor is it unreasonable, whatever possessory right may be held by another, that the owner of the freehold should prevent the commission of waste by any other person.

Mr. H. said it was entirely unnecessary for him to go into a detail of the various recommendations of successive Presidents on this subject. It was well known that Mr. Mr. H. said he could not suppose it necessary to state Jefferson looked to the ultimate location of the Indians to the honorable gentleman the principles which govern west of the Mississippi. If he was not greatly mistaken, freehold right. The gentleman has seen fit to arraign, that entered as a motive into the purchase of Louisiana. with much censure, the law of Georgia which extends to He believed there might now be found an act in the statute a Cherokee the right to absolve himself from an obligation book, passed during the administration of Mr. Jefferson, entered into with a white man, while no such option is exlooking to that object. The recommendation of Mr. Mon- tended to the white man. And is it possible that the honroe, and the course of Mr. Adams on this subject, must be orable gentleman will not understand the intention of that known to every one. The act of the last session, com- law? Does he not see in it the same benevolent purpose monly called the Indian bill, was but in conformity, so far which dictates a similar principle in relation to infants? as it concerned the Cherokees, with a treaty made with It is impossible to give any other construction to the inthe western portion of that tribe by Mr. Adams, in May, tention of the Legislature of Georgia.

1828. Mr. H. said he knew that treaty looked to the But the honorable gentleman has not permitted the conemigration of the Cherokees, and he also knew that ap-duct of Georgia to pass without severe reprehension for propriations for that object then had the support of the passing an act at the last session of her Legislature, for the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, and his friends survey of the lands occupied by the Cherokees within her now acting with him, in opposition to a policy which can, limits. To enforce his pathetic appeal, he had read, with in no sense, be considered in any other light but extend- much emphasis, an extract from a letter published in one ing and carrying out the policy of Mr. Adams. The gen- of the newspapers of Augusta, in Georgia. Mr. H. retleman from Massachusetts chooses to find fault with the gretted that the honorable gentleman had not favored us country to which it is proposed to remove the Cherokee with the name of the writer of that letter. A knowledge Indians. Mr. H. said, for his part, he had received the of that name might enable him to unravel the motive with most satisfactory information on that subject. His infor- which it had been written. Although he had an opinion mation was derived from one of the most intelligent red who did write that letter, yet he would not impute motives men he had ever seen, a man belonging to the Cherokees to the supposed author upon suspicion only. He, too, of the West. But it could only be necessary to refer gen- could read extracts from letters having responsible namestlemen to the provisions in favor of the intruders on Love-not printed and anonymous-letters from men well known, ly's purchase, a part of the territory ceded by the treaty and of high respectability, in Georgia-letters going to show of 1828 to the Cherokees, to show that it was any thing that in the proposed survey and occupancy of the wild but unproductive and undesirable. If he recollected the lands in the Cherokee country, so called, it was not interms of the law on the subject, it gave to each head of tended to molest the occupants. Indeed, the very section a family of intruders a pre-emption to half a section of of the law which had been read by the honorable gentleland as an equivalent for the inconvenience of removing man shows, most conclusively, no other intention. Nor from the country on which he had intruded. But the was it designed only to afford a feigned protection to themhonorable gentleman finds fault with the Governor of selves, their familice, and such improvements as, accord

VOL. VII.--49

H. OF R.]

Indian Question.

[FEB. 21, 1831.

ing to the former opinions of Mr. J. Q. Adams, could give 'sure, and the effect of every precedent, ought to be an Indian title. He referred from memory to an anniver-scrupulously attended to and critically examined. This sary oration delivered by that gentleman, some years ago, is the business of the Representatives of the people, and in commemoration of the landing of the pilgrims at Ply-can never be by them confided to any other persons. mouth. Then is there one rule for estimating Indian title "The great object presented to us by our political when it conflicts with the interest of the pilgrims or their situation is, the support of the General Government, the descendants, and another rule for Georgia? But, he said, giving force and efficacy to its functions, without dehe well knew at least one prominent motive which go-stroying the powers which the people intended to vest verned some of the members of the Legislature of Georgia, who made most strenuous exertions for the immediate survey and occupancy of the wild lands in the Cherokee country. He knew this, because they were of the number of his particular friends.

and to reserve in the State Governments.

"A consolidation of all the States into one Government would at once endanger the nation as a republic, and eventually divide the States united, or eradicate the prin'ciples which we have contended for.

"It is much less hazardous to prevent the establishment 'of a dangerous precedent, than to attempt an abolition of 'it after it has obtained a place in a civil institution."

"A communication from his Excellency Governor Adams, of the State of Massachusetts, which was ordered 'to lie on the table, being taken under consideration, a motion was made by Mr. Watkins that the House do come 'to the following resolution:

Indeed, it is a motive which would then have operated, and would now operate, on his own mind, if he was a member of that Legislature. It was that the laws of Georgia might operate on the Cherokee Indians; not with How different the opinions and conduct of that higha desire to coerce their removal, but as they were under souled patriot from those who, at this day, consider the the rightful jurisdiction of the State, that jurisdiction Union endangered by a proposition to repeal a single secmight be exercised over them. The honorable gentleman tion of a law! When it is recollected that Governor Hanasks, if a citizen from another State should go to sojourn cock survived but a few weeks after this message was at Savannah, would a law of Georgia be tolerated, which written, it requires no stretch of imagination to consider required of him to take an oath of allegiance to her? And it his political testament, containing the most solemn warnyet, the gentleman says, it is equally unjust to require ings to coming generations. He was not so fortunate as such an oath of a citizen who may reside among the Che- to have laid his hand upon the proceedings of the Legisla rokee Indians. Cannot the gentleman see a marked dif- ture, in consequence of the message to which he had adference in the two cases? Savannah being a community verted. Within a few weeks after it was written, Governor acknowledging the Government of Georgia, such a law Hancock ceased to live, and the executive functions dewould be unreasonable in relation to her. But not so involved on the venerable patriot Samuel Adams, as Lieuthe Cherokee country; there an independent Government tenant Governor. Nor had he been able to refer to a is pretended to be set up, in defiance of the authority of communication subsequently made by Governor Adams Georgia. And is it wonderful that she should require to the Governors of the other States; but there could be white men who go there to take an oath of allegiance to little difficulty in arriving at its import, and the character her? Most certainly not. But of all the objections taken of the legislative proceedings to which it referred, by a by the honorable gentleman, it is, perhaps, most unfortu- moment's attention to the proceedings of the House of nate for him that he should have selected the case of Tas- Representatives of Georgia, under date of the 12th of sels for the theme of his eloquence-Tassels, who, nobody | December, 1793. That the subject might be the better denies, was guilty of murder on a man of his own tribe! understood, he would refer to them. But the high offence of Georgia, in the opinion of the gentleman, consists in her disobedience to the citation of the Chief Justice of the United States. Let us exa:nine into the power of that officer to issue and enforce that precept. But, before doing so, he would take leave to call the attention of the honorable gentleman to the course pur"Resolved, That this House do highly approve of the sued by Massachusetts in 1793, before the eleventh amend-measures taken by the Legislature of the State of Massament to the constitution had been adopted, and when the 'chusetts, in the case of an attempt to compel the Execujudicial power of the United States was as broad as origin-tive of that State, by mandatory process, to answer to a ally laid down in the second section of the third article of 'suit instituted by an individual in the Supreme Court of that instrument, and this under circumstances far less the United States; that the Governor do answer the comstrong in her favor. Does the gentleman recollect that munication of Governor Adams on that subject, expressat that period the Supreme Court decided that it had ing the great objects which stimulated similar exertions, jurisdiction of a cause brought before it by an individual on the part of this State, to guard her retained sovereignagainst the State of Massachusetts? And does he not know 'ty; and that this State has, and will at all times mainthat it was considered of sufficient importance by Gover-tain and support such sovereignty against every infraction nor Hancock-John Hancock, once President of Con- of her most sacred rights." gress--to require him to convene the Legislature? And This resolution passed the House. But it might be does not the gentleman recollect the principles laid down proper for him to state some facts and references conby that distinguished man, as it regards the right of a nected with the case referred to in the resolution, in people to examine and to change their form of govern- which a similar attempt had been made to enforce the ment? But Mr. Hancock's opinions may be better under- jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, at the suit of an indistood by referring to the language of his message to the vidual against the State of Georgia. Legislature, in September, 1793. After adverting to the cause of complaint, he says: "The idea that it is dangerous to examine systems of government, and to compare the effects of their administration with the principles on which they are raised, is inadmissible among a free peo'ple. If the people are capable of practising on a free "And be it further enacted, That any federal marshal, government, they are able, without disorders or convul- or any other person, levying, or attempting to levy, on 'sions, to examine, alter, and amend the systems which the territory of this State, or any part thereof, or on the 'they have ordained. And it is of great consequence to treasury, or any other property belonging to the said the freedom of a nation to review its civil constitution, State, or on the property of the Governor or Attorney and to compare the practice under it with the principles General, or any of the people thereof, under and by upon which it depends. The tendency of every mea-virtue of any execution, or other compulsory process,

6

This was the case of Chisholm, executor of Farquhar, against the State of Georgia. And here he would refer to a section of a bill which passed the House of Representatives of Georgia on the 21st of December, 1793. The section reads: