Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

64

[MAY 19, 1830.

with them for fifty or sixty years, we have negotiated and guage to Georgia on that occasion? It was, in substance, dealt with them as independent sovereignties, without a this, " that so long as Georgia meddled and tampered with single exception; but this bill now proposes to change our the Indians herself, and would not acknowledge the expolicy, and throw all these tribes of Indians into the hands clusive right of the United States to treat with them as soof the President of the United States, to be bargained with vereign communities, they could not think of interfering in like individuals or petty corporations; no treaty is contem- their quarrels." I beg leave, sir, to quote a few passages plated by the bill, no convention with them as a nation, but from that document of the old Congress. It is there said a door is to be thrown open, by which you can approach "that there is a circumstance far more embarrassing," and every individual of the tribe, and make a separate bargain that is, the clause in the confederation "relative to manag with him for his little improvement. More of this, bow-ing all affairs with the Indians, &c. is differently constra ever, when I come to examine particularly the principles ed by Congress, and the two States (meaning North of the bill. But I would ask, sir, why is it now necessary | Carolina and Georgia) within whose limits the said tribes to change our policy towards those sons of the forest and disputed lands are: the construction contended for by what has produced this necessity? Will not the Indians these States, if right, appears to the committee to leave agree to sell their lands? and must they be had at any rate, the federal powers in this case a mere nullity; North Careand by any means? Is it necessary to descend to making in-lina has undertaken to assign lands to the Cherokees, and dividual contracts instead of national ones? If you cannot Georgia has proceeded to treat with the Creeks concernobtain the consent of the nation to dispose of its domain, ing peace, lands, and the objects usually the principal ones, is it right and just to tamper with individuals of it, and in almost every treaty with the Indians." It is further said thereby weaken its power, by distracting its councils, set-in that document," The laws of the State can have no ef ting its members at war among themselves, creating strife, fect upon a tribe of Indians or their lands within the limits feuds, and separate interests, in order to accomplish in this of their State." It caunot be supposed that the State manner what you could not by fair and honorable treaties has the powers mentioned." But it is said, "that the way Sir, I have said that our policy of treating with the Indians to avoid those difficulties is to concede to Congress the exas sovereign communities has been settled ever since the clusive management of all affairs with the Cherokees and establishment of our independence; and, sir, I will say fur- Creeks, and other independent tribes within the limits of ther, it has had the sanction of all the distinguished states- the said States-so that Congress may have the ackons men and patriots from the revolution down to the present ledged power of regulating trade, and making treaties with day. General Washington and his cabinet solemnly recog those tribes-that Congress, however, can never employ nised the principle, as appears by the document read to the forces of the Union in any cause, the justice of which the Committee of the Whole by the honorable gentleman they are not fully informed and convinced, nor constitutionfrom New York, [Mr. STORRS.] Alexander Hamilton, the ally interfere in behalf of the State against.any such indeelder John Adams, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, Mr. Mon-pendent tribe, but on the principle that Congress shall have roe, and John Q. Adams, have all maintained the same the whole direction of the war, and settling of all the terms opinion; and, sir, the American people recognise the same of peace with such Indian tribes." This, then, appears to principle at this moment, nor will they ever sanction any have been the settled opinion of Congress so long ago as other so long as the Indians remain a distinct and separate 1787, and they have acted upon that principle ever since. race of men. Sir, our policy in relation to them may not Georgia conceded the power to Congress then, and has achave been the best that could be adopted, yet it was knowledged it in more emphatical terms since, by requir the best that our ancestors at that time could conceive of. ing of them, in 1802, when she made her cession of lands, I must confess I never have myself believed our policy the to extinguish the title of the Indians to the remainder with best that could be; but, such as it is, the Indians have ac- in her own territorial limits. Sir, I have other evidence of customed themselves to it, and have acted under it, until it the justness of the principles that the Indians are sove has so mingled itself with their institutions, as to now form reign communities within the limits of the lands upon the basis of their national code with the white man. I have which they reside. The honorable gentleman in the other been inclined to think it was not the best, not because I House, who is at the head of the Committee on Indian Afcould readily devise a better, but because it has not au- fairs, [Mr. WHITE, of Tennessee] and who presented to swered the end for which it was intended, that is, their the Senate the very bill under consideration, gave an opi civilization; and probably, indeed, none that could be de- nion on this point some years ago, in which he proves vised would answer that purpose. The Indians have be- incontestibly that they are sovereign nations; and that opilieved us sincere, that we intended to act upon those prin- nion, too, was given to the Indians themselves, on a ques ciples in good faith, that we really viewed them in the tion presented to him, by them, for his decision, under cir light of sovereign communities, and intended to treat them cumstances, too, which required the exercise of all his as such. And, sir, what is their surprise, when, all at once, candor, all his justice, his talents, his integrity, and bis the curtain is drawn aside, the veil cast off, and they see philanthropy. And I have no hesitation in saying he did themselves exposed to the rude approach of obtrusive exercise all those virtues in an eminent degree in giving power? What, sir, must be their surprise when they are now that opinion, for such was the force of his reasoning on the told that these treaties, these national engagements are but subject, that he has put even scepticism itself to the blush. solemn mockeries, political farces," mere devices, intend- Indeed, a very distinguished statesman, now a member of ed by the Government more for effect upon their minds, the other branch of this Legislature, told me that he had than with an intention of being carried into execution," for had his doubts about the matter until he read that learned such is the language of the Committee on Indian Affairs, opinion, after which it was impossible to doubt for a meas stated in their report to this House. ment. Now, sir, that honorable gentleman has reversed his opinion, and at this time sanctions all the doctrines of Georgia upon this point, and has consented to bring in this bill and advocate it.

Sir, I have in my hand a report of a committee of the old federal Congress, dated 1787, in which the question of the sovereignty of the Indian tribes is most solemnly settled. It seems that after the treaty of Hopewell, in 1785, with the Cherokees, the State of Georgia, at the same time that she remonstrated against that treaty, took upon herself to treat with the Indians; and after having got into difficulties, and when threatened with a war by them, she called upon the Congress to protect her against their tomahawks and scalping knives. And, sir, what was their lan

I appeal, sir, to the solemn acts of the now Chief Magistrate of the Union. When acting under the solemn ob gations of an oath to support the constitution of the United States, he himself entered into several treaties with the Indians, acknowledging their sovereignty and indepen dence. And, what is remarkable, in the year 1817, in July, Andrew Jackson, now President of the United States,

MAY 19, 1830.]

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

After this, shall it be said that these treaties are nullities,

overnor McMinn, of Tennessee, and Mr. Merriwether, of piring remnant of a poor, miserable class of beings, who eorgia, negotiated a treaty with those very Cherokee have been lulled into a hope of safety by her promises of Fidiaus, in which they expressly confirm all the treaties protection. Sir, I make no charge against any State or eretofore between them, and declare that they shall for- community of men. Alabama and Georgia are both highver be entitled to all the rights and immunities granted by minded, honorable States, and might do the Indians much he same. Sir, what does this treaty, entered into with more justice than even the United States, for aught I know; em by the Chief Magistrate, guaranty to those Indians? but it is the principle I condemn; it is forfeiting our solemn hy, sir, it guaranties "that if any white man residing engagements; it is delivering those poor wretches into the noug them shall commit a murder, or other capital crime, hands of persons interested in their destruction, with shall be by them delivered up to be punished by the whom they have no engagements for safety. It is withhites." Not that the laws of Georgia shall extend over drawing from them that protection which they had a right em, and punish him and them. "That if any citizen to expect from this Government. It is a violation of our the United States, or person under their protection, solemn pledges, and a forfeiture of our sacred honor as a all commit a robbery, murder, or other crime on an In- nation, which I can never consent to. Sir, I digress from an, he shall be punished in the same manner as if he had the point I was considering: I will return. mmitted the offence on a white man, and the Indians ay attend and see him punished if they will." That if" mere devices, intended more to operate upon the minds by citizen of the United States shall settle or attempt to ttle on the Indian lands, and will not remove on due noce, he forfeits the protection of the United States, and e Indians may punish him as they please." "No white an, without the consent of the Indians, or a license from e United States, is allowed to go into or upon the Indian nds. It is further stipulated, that the Indians nor hites shall resort to the law of retaliation, except for a ross or manifest violation of the treaties, and then they e to give notice, and, if the grievance is not redressed by e whites, they are to declare war, before either party all retaliate." And, sir, in this treaty, there is the folwing provision, "that the United States solemnly guanty to the Indians all their lands, and engage to protect em against all intrusions, not only of all other Indians, ut against the whites likewise." These are the solemn enty provisions now subsisting between the United States d the Indians proposed to be removed by the provions of this bill, and solemn treaty provisions entered into ith them by Andrew Jackson himself, the President of e United States. And what is the language now held out these poor Indians by this same President of the UnitStates? In a talk which he held with the Creeks last ring, he tells them, "where you are now, you and my hite children are too near each other to live in harmo7. your game is destroyed, and many of your people will t work; your father has provided you a country over e Mississippi river, and I advise you to go to it. In that untry your father the President promises to protect ou, to feed you, and to shield you from all harm; where ou now live, your white brothers have always claimed e land. The land beyond the Mississippi belongs to the resident, and none else." "My white children in Alaama have extended their laws over your country; if you main in it, you must be subject to their laws." Sir, this the language held to those poor Indians by the Predent of the United States, after those solemn treaty enagements he has entered into with them himself. "You ve too near the whites," "you had better go away." Alabama has always owned your land, I cannot protect if you live there, you must submit to the laws of labama, you must not expect me to interfere." The Indians are enjoying a good country solemnly guaantied to them by the United States. Alabama, deeply terested in securing the country to herself, they are to e delivered up to her to pass what onerous laws she leases over them; they, poor wretches, must submit to er laws, whatever they may be, or remove away into a ilderness they know nothing of. Is this leaving them at heir own will to go or stay Is this holding out to them he terms they had a right to expect under the solemn ledges of the Government? Sir, it is not the language of he uation; it is the last thing I will believe of my country, hat she will forfeit her solemn pledges, her sacred honor. t is the last thing I will believe, that she will deliver up o persons deeply interested in their extinction, the exVOL. VI.-139.

ou;

of the Indians than to be carried into effect?" Sir, this is a strange language for any man to hold, and more particu larly for an honorable committee of this House; but if we pass this bill, it becomes the language of the pation. I will never consent thus to degrade my country. If these great sacrifices are to be made, some more yielding spirit than mine must be found. Sir, let us now examine a little the principles upon which this doctrine is founded, the situation we place ourselves in, in relation to our rights and the rights of the Indians. In what relation do the Indians stand to the United States; and what to the several States? May they be considered as sovereign communities without the limits of a State, and not within? Suppose we admit that position, what is the conclusion? Why, that the United States must treat with them for their lands if they reside without the limits of any State. They are, in that situation, allowed to contract alliances, declare war, and make peace-they own the soil, and it must be got of them by conquest or purchase. But the Congress have a right to admit new States into the Union; and when the territory upon which they reside comes to be admitted into the Union, their relations change like magic, and quick as lightning they lose their sovereignty, are at once rendered dependent on the State, taken out of the friendly care of Congress, and become amalgamated with the mass of citizens of the State, whose sovereignty happens to be thrown over them. They have been neither bought nor sold, nor have they consented, and yet they have been changed in a moment from the savage to the citizen. If this doctrine be correct, we have expended some thirty or forty millions of money very foolishly. We have nothing to do but to lay out the whole Indian territory into States, and the lands all become our own, unless you say the so vereignty of the States operates upon the person and not upon the property, which would be a glaring solecism. What is sovereignty? It is that power and dominion which man has over all created things-there is nothing which it does not operate upon. It grasps the ocean and the earth, the whale in the ocean, and the ant that creeps upon the ground. It extends to the lives, liberties, and fortunes of all those over whom it exerts its influence. It is that, and that only, which gives the tenure by which nations hold the property they possess. It is that, and that only, which gives them a name and a being as a nation. Without it, they are but a heterogeneous mass of individuals, destitute of power and without rights. They can neither take, hold, possess, or exercise authority over any thing. Under this view of the subject, if you strip the Indians of their sovereignty, they can have nothing; you have no need to purchase their lands, they belong to you; indeed, without admitting them that power, they cannot sell you their lands, for that is all that makes them nations. How then stands the case with Georgia? She claims the soil when the Indian title is extinguished, and claims it justly, too; her right thus far is admitted. Now, if it be true that the Indians within her borders are not sovereign communities,

H. OF R.]

Removal of the Indians.

[MAY 19, 1830.

why, they cannot hold the lands, and she has them without which would not entirely suit the notions of those who money and without price, and she has not only the lands, stickle so much for State rights. And sir, however this but she has the Indians also. She is a sovereign State be- kind of doctrine may comport with the views of the present yond all doubt, and, as such, has a right to exercise the administration, it will never suit the people. power. The Indians have no title but what they claim from being a sovereign community; and if they be not that, why, they are her citizens or they are aliens or slaves, and so have no title whatever in the soil to extinguish. Aliens can hold property as well as citizens, slaves cannot; but it will not be pretended the Indians are the latter, and, if they were, the result would be the same, for their masters would be the rightful owners of all they possessed; and if they be aliens, Georgia would possess their property so far as she was entitled to do so by virtue of her sovereign power. And such being the state of the case, Georgia can have no claim upon the United States, and the passage of this bill, as to her, would be perfectly nugatory.

Take another view of the case. If she has a right to extend her laws over the Indians, it must be because they have no rights as a nation-that must be admitted. They cannot own the soil as individuals, for they can have no individual rights; and, if they had, the United States never undertook to extinguish the rights of individuals. Georgia, by extending her laws over them, makes them her citizens, or they are aliens, as before observed; and the United States never undertook to extinguish the title of either her eiti zens, or of the aliens residing within or without her jurisdiction, and under her control. That title which the United States undertook to extinguish, was that which the Indians held as a sovereign community, not as citizens or aliens of Georgia. If Georgia really has the power to extend her laws over them, and make them her citizens, why, by that very act, she does all the United States undertook to do for her, and of course can have no claim upon them. She has taken the matter into her own hands, and has relieved them from all responsibility. What, then, is the necessity of passing this act for its operations will be confined pretty much to Georgia, unless you carry the doctrine to the extent I have before suggested: and, even then, it will be useless for if, really, Alabama and Mississippi possess the power they contend for, and do actually extend their laws over the Indians, they must become citizens of those States and all their disabilities as nations attach, and all their rights as citizens accrue; so that, if they owned the lands before as nations, taking away their character as such, puts it out of the power of Congress to treat with them, and they either own the lands as individuals, and the United States have no right to take them from them, or they have no title at all, and the United States, or Alabama and Mississippi, own them; and if the doctrine contended for by the President of the United States be true, who does really own the soil in the new States-the General Government, or the States? This question might bring the General and State Governments into collision about the soil, which it would be a very dangerous one to raise. But let it belong to whom it may, the question with Georgia is settled, and, likewise, the question about the necessity of this bill; for, in any such state of the case, the Indian title, as such, is extinguished. Nothing is more clear than that fact; for the United States have certainly no authority to make purchase of large bodies of land of the citizens of a State, or of a State itself. Congress can only purchase lands for national purposes, such as are either expressed or implied in the grants of the constitution, for erecting forts, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings, or for roads, canals, or other necessary means of defence. If we admit the principle that Congress can purchase of the citizens, or a State itself, a part of the lands of a State, for any other than mere national purposes, and hold them, we must admit the right to purchase all the lands, and so make its citizens vassals to the General Government; and if they may purchase one State, they may purchase all, and, by that means, consolidate the States into one great empire;

Sir, there is another light in which this subject may be viewed, and which clearly extinguishes all claim Georgia has upon the United States in relation to those lands, if her doctrine be correct. The compact entered into by the United States with Georgia, when she ceded her wild lands within the State, was, that the Indian title should be extinguished "as soon as it could be done peaceably, and on reasonable terms." Sir, what was the consideration for this arrangement? It was the cession of the lands by Georgia. What was the reason for the undertaking, on the part of the United States! It was, because it was considered, by both parties, that Georgia had not the power, under the constitution, to treat with the Indians for their lands, or indeed for any thing else belonging to them; because, by the constitution, the sole and exclusive power of regulating commerce with the Indians is given to Congress. But Georgia declares that all those treaties made by the General Government with the Indians are nullities-that they had no power or authority to make such-that she has a right to extend her laws over the Indians, convert them into her citizens, and so place it beyond the power of this Government to make treaties with them at all; and, of course, unable to comply with its stipulation—and which, if really true, the Government has undertaken to do a thing not within the range of its power-and so the stipulation is perfectly null and void. Hence, sir, in whatever light you view this nullifying doctrine, it leads to the same result. If Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi be right in their construction of the constitution, and the treaties made with the Indians under it, why, then, there is no necessity for this law, unless, indeed, it be intended to deal with individuals among the Indians for their lands and improvements; and that will be conceding what is altogether contrary to any principle in the laws of nations. It would be conceding that individuals acquire rights by virtue of their national sovereignty, separate and distinct from their private rights as citizens-and that the Government may purchase of them those rights so acquired: for it will not be contended that the United States can purchase individual titles of private citizens, except it be for national purposes. What, sir, would Georgia say, if a proposition were gravely made in this House, to purchase of her citizens all the lands within her limits? I am inclined to think it would be rejected by her representatives as promptly as a proposition to increase the tariff, or that of a project of internal improvement. If, then, the Indians are her citizens, as the gentleman from Georgia who last spoke, [Mr. WILDE] contends they are-for he says they might tax them, and claim a representation for them in this House-we can make no treaties with them, and this bill is useless. So much I have thought it right to say, upon principles and precedent. Let me now inquire a little into the expediency and justice of the measure.

Sir, I took occasion to remark, in a digression that I made, that we had been in the habit of treating the Indians as distinct and sovereign communities since the first organization of the Government-that all the sages and patriots of the republic, from its foundation to the present administration, had done so. Now, sir, what have we done, and how stands the case? In 1785, '91, '95, and every year since, we have told those Indians, we will protect youyou shall live under your own laws-no white man shall step his foot upon your soil—your lines shall be marked— and if a white man intrudes upon you, you may punish him as you please, and we will hold him as being without our protection. Those treaties have been renewed-they now subsist and are in full force. The national faith and the national honor are all pledged for their support and maintenance. Nay, the very same person who now holds in his hands the national prerogative, has himself sanctioned the

2

[blocks in formation]

doctrine, and renewed all the pledges, while acting under other functionaries of the Government. And now, sir, since he has been elevated to the lofty station which he holds, he has reversed all these solemn decrees. He now holds a very different language. He tells the poor savage, I cannot protect you-you must submit to the laws of the States, or you must march to the wilderness; you must seek in the desert that repose which is denied you here. Georgia is a sovereign State-I cannot undertake to control her; she must do as she pleases with you. If I were to attempt to control her, she might do something injurious to us, and ruinous to you. Sir, this is a language the poor Indian never heard before from this Government, and never had a right to expect to hear. Nor is this an overdrawn picture: it is short of the truth. I need not refer to the book containing the language: I hold it in my hand; it is on every gentleman's table in this House. To understand the true situation of these Indians, it will be necessary to go a little more minutely into the case. It will be necessary to examine the principles of this bill, the nature of the laws of Georgia and of the other States, which have been brought to bear upon them. In 1802, Georgia made a cession of a part of what she claimed as her territory, to the United States. In that compact, the Government undertook to extinguish all the Indian title to lands lying within the bounds of the State, "as soon as it could be done peaceably, and on reasonable terms." These are the words of the compact: "The United States shall, at their own expense, extinguish, for the use of Georgia, as early as the same can be "peaceably obtained, on reasonable terms, the lands, &c." Observe, the lands were to be obtained as soon as they could be, " peaceably, and on reasonable terms." We were not to go to war with the Indians for them; we were not to violate treaties; we were not to trample upon established principles, or tear up the foundation of a settled policy the Government was pledged to maintain. Nor was it to be done at all events; it was to be done on reasonable terms, or not at all; clear ly showing that the United States did not feel themselves at liberty to fall upon the Indians, and drive them from the country, right or wrong-and showing, as clearly, that Georgia was not authorized to do so; and, at the same time, conceding to the United States a power she did not claim herself, that is, the power of making treaties with the Indians. If the Government were bound, at all events, to extinguish the Indian title to the lands, why those qualifyng words," when it can be done peaceably, and on reason able terms!" If Georgia had been competent to treat with the Indians, why not do so! Why stipulate with the United States to do it? or, if her right to extend her laws over the Indians was clear, why make any stipulation with the United States? Sir, Georgia had no idea, at that time, that she had the right, or the power, to do either the one or the other. And, sir, I will venture to say, that neither Georgia, Alabama, or Mississippi would ever have ventured upon that bold experiment, if President Jackson had not told them that they had the right and power to do 80: for it will be recollected that it was last spring that General Jackson had the talk with the Indians, in which be told them he could not protect them against the intrusions of those States; and it was not till this last winter and the present spring, that those States took upon themselves to extend their laws over the Indians within their borders. I say, it is evident they were emboldened to do so by the language which General Jackson held toward those Indians; for they never had before presumed to do so, por until he had announced to these tribes that the protection of the United States should be withdrawn from them; thereby inviting the States to do what they did. And, sir, it is not a little remarkable that this language of renunciation should be proclaimed to the Cherokee Indians by General Jackson, after negotiating with them the treaty he did in 1817. It is admitted, in the preamble to that treaty,

[H. OF R.

that their object is to "divide or separate the nation (the Cherokees) into two parties "one to remain where they are, they having made much more progress than their brethren toward civilization, and being disposed to pursue the arts of husbandry, quit the hunter's life, and "to establish among themselves fixed laws and a regular form of Government;" the other party retaining more of the Indian character, being disposed to pursue the hunter's life, and the game becoming scarce where they are, they propose to sell their lands in that place to their white brethren, and remove over the Mississippi; and the President of the United States having consented to their proposition, and assigned them a piece of land in the wilderness, the nation there stipulate, the one party, "that they will remain, establish for themselves fixed laws and a regular form of Government"-the other party, "that they will leave their possessions on this side the Mississippi to their white brethren, and go to the country they have chosen beyond." In that treaty this solemn, human, and benevolent language is held by General Jackson to the nation. After reciting the promises of the President to aid them in removing to the country they had chosen, it is stipulated, "that whereas the Cherokees, relying upon the promises of the President of the United States, they did make choice of a country, and did settle themselves down upon the United States" lands, and have sent on their agents to make a treaty, therefore, know ye, that in order to carry into full effect these promises of the President, and to promote a continuation of friendship with their brothers," go on to establish and conclude the various articles that follow; and, among the rest, the one heretofore recited, confirming and acknowledging, with both parts of the nation, the continuance, "in full force, of all treaties between them :" and it is particularly stipulated in this treaty, "that if any of the Cherokees on the east side of the Mississippi shall desire to become citizens of the United States, and they shall make known that desire, each head of a family shall have laid off to him six hundred and forty acres of land, to remain to him for life, with remainder in fee simple to his children." Here, sir, is a treaty entered into with the Cherokees by General Jackson, now Presi dent of the United States, and a distinguished citizen of the State of Georgia, by and with the consent of Georgia: those distinguished gentlemen acting under the solemn obligations of an oath to support the constitution of the United States making a treaty with the Cherokee Indians, a large portion of whom reside in Georgia; which, in its solemn stipulations, recognises the following facts: "that the Indians who remain on this side of the Mississippi, either in Georgia or Alabama, are not citizens of the United States," because it provides for their becoming such a that they have the right, and intend to establish fixed laws for themselves, and a regular form of Government, and to remain there, pursuing the arts of husbandry under fixed laws and a regular form of Government of their own," separate, distinct, and independent of the United States, of Georgia, of Alabama, and of all the world. I say that it is not a little remarkable that, after those solemn engagements, recognising these high sovereign rights, they should be told by General Jackson himself, holding in his hand the power and prerogative of a mighty nation, that they could not be maintained in them; that they must go to the desert, or yield to the encroachments of the States in which they reside.

How far these Cherokees have lived up to their professions in favor of civilized life of their intentions to aban don that of the hunters, and pursue the arts of husbandry-the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. EVERETT] has told us. He has given us a schedule of their slaves, their horses, their cattle, their farming utensils, together with a statement of their churches, their public houses, their mills, their workshops, &c. I ask you, then, sir, if it comports with the dignity, the honor, and the justice of this great repub

H. of R.]

Removal of the Indians.

[MAY 19, 1830

66

lic, to throw these people from your protection, and aban- mere compacts, as with individuals. The language of the don them to those with whom they have no stipulations for constitution is express "that Congress shall have power protection and safety, and tell them, in the language of to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs, that all several States, and with the Indian tribes." And that this parade about treaties "is a mere device, intended the President shall have power, by and with the advice only to operate upon their minds, without any intention of and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided twobeing carried into effect." Would it be honorable to thirds of the Senators present concur." Now, sir, in relacoerce these people to leave their homes, guarantied to tion to the regulation of commerce with foreign powers them by so many solemn pledges of your country, to wan and with the Indian tribes, there is no kind of distinction der again to the wilderness-again to degenerate into bar-made in the constitution between the modes to be pursued barism, almost as soon as the light of civilization has begun in relation to foreign powers and that of the Indian tribes; to dawn upon their benighted minds? Sir, it would not. hence, I take it for granted, there is no difference allowed But we are told, this bill does not coerce them. True, it to be made in the mode of procedure between the two. does not array against them fire and sword; it does not pro. It is to be done by treaties, and no other mode can be pose using physical force-but, sir, does it not, combined adopted without a violation of the constitution. There with other circumstances, lay them under an irresistible is a treaty-making power created by the constitution, and compulsion? Let us examine the operations of the bill, in that is to be exercised in a particular way pointed out by conjunction with the laws of Georgia, Alabama, and Mis- the constitution; that being the case, this House, or both sissippi, which have been extended over them. Houses, cannot nullify or change that mode, without an The first prominent feature in this bill, and which must express violation of its principles. What was the treatystrike every man the moment he casts his eye upon it, is making power created for, if Congress may adopt any this, that it proposes to withdraw from the Senate their other mode they please? I say it cannot be done by this revisory power over the treaties and compacts entered House, or by both Houses; or otherwise the constitution into by the President of the United States. The whole is a dead letter. If the President, by and with the advice burden of this business is to be thrown into his hands, to and consent of the Senate, is alone authorized to make be disposed of according to his discretion. No treaty is treaties, how can Congress substitute any other mode? No to be made iu form; the bill declares "the President may one, 1 believe, would be hardy enough to affirm that the lay off the districts of land" "the President may ex-President alone could make a treaty with a foreign power; change lands;" "the President shall do, and shall cause to and, if he cannot do so with a foreign power, I ask how be done," every thing proposed by the bill. The Senate can he do it with an Indian tribe, when the power to do have yielded themselves into the hands of the Executive, the one is granted in the constitution by the very same to dispose of no one knows how much of the public lands, words as is that to do the other! What would the people but surely not less than one hundred millions of acres, of the Union say if Congress were to pass an act authoand, besides that, not less than twenty millions of public rizing the President to negotiate a treaty with England, moneys, and all this without any check or control from or any other foreign power, to adjust and fix a tariff of any quarter whatever. This enormous sum of money is duties to suit his own notions, without consulting the Seto be disbursed under his discretion, by such persons as nate or this House? Would they not say the act was unhe may think proper to appoint, and who are answerable constitutional, as well as an infringement of their rights? to him alone. All those vast contracts are to be carried Would they not say that that was a power they never auinto execution by men appointed solely by the President, thorized us to confer, and pronounce us usurpers for doing without consulting any power, save his owu. If a petty so? They certainly would, and justly, too. I say, sir, officer of the Government, without pay or responsibility, would not such a proposition shock this nation? And is to be permanently appointed, the President has to ask yet this bill proposes to do what is in principle precisely the advice and consent of the Senate; but here, sir, one the same thing, and indeed a scheme of equal magnitude, hundred, and, for what I know, or any one else, one thou- and of more alarming and dangerous consequences. In sand will be appointed, for the disbursement of some this instance the President is authorized not to make twenty millions of dollars of public money, subject only treaties, not to hold conventions, subject to the revision to the will and control of the Executive. If, sir, I had and control of the Senate, but arrangements, compacts, or the most implicit confidence in the discretion, the energy, whatever else you may please to call them, in just such and firmness of the President, I would withhold from him a manner as may suit his own notions, to the amount of a this vast power and patronage. It is possible he may make hundred millions of acres of land, and about twenty-four some improvident appointments, as we have undeniable millions of dollars, uncontrolled by any legal restriction, evidence that he has done in some instances, who may save his own discretion. Not but that he might exercise make some very onerous contracts; but the moment they that tremendous discretion very honestly and very judiare made, they are binding upon the Government, and ciously, but the granting it would still be no more or less you will have to appropriate money for their payment, a breach of the constitution. Under these impressions, I because the nation is pledged to do so. Where is this vast cannot consent to vote for this bill; nor shall I ever consent scheme to end Seventy or eighty thousand Indians are to to do so, until I get my own consent to violate that constibe removed across the Mississippi, and no principle esta-tution which I have sworn on this floor to support. blished upon which it is to be done, except what may be devised by the Executive within the provisions of a loose and indefiuite bill. I ask again, sir, if it were intended to consult the feelings of the Indians upon the occasion, why was it necessary to withdraw the subject from the treaty-making power? Why was it necessary to throw the whole in the hands of the Executive, without, at least, consulting his constitutional advisers (the Senate)? He ought to have, in an af fair of so much importance, the counsel of the whole nation. Sir, I have another insuperable objection to this bill, and one that it is impossible for me to reconcile with the duty I owe to myself. I believe those Indiaus are sovereign communities, at least so far as to render it necessary to hold treaties with them, as with other powers, and not

Sir, I was anxious to adopt some correct and constitutional system by which all those sons of the forest might have an opportunity of changing their residence among the whites here, for one beyond the Mississippi, who might choose voluntarily to do so; and I was anxious for its adoption, because I saw and dreaded the perilous situation in which those poor helpless fellow-beings were placed. I saw them driven, by the construction which the President of the United States had given to the constitution and the various treaties into which we had entered with them, from the protecting shelter which those solemn guaranties had thrown around them, destitute of the means of port, and I felt anxious to relieve them upon any safe and correct principle, regardless of the expense, and submitted

« ПретходнаНастави »