ther these rights of the British government of pre-emption of Indian lands, were vested in the general government, or in the individual states. These questions were finally settled by compromise; but congress, in accepting the cessions of western lands to which the Indian title was not extinguished, would not admit that the confederacy had not, independent of such cessions, a good title to the unoccupied lands.. After many difficulties with Geor. gia, on the subject of the Indian lands, a compromise was made in 1802, by which a boundary line was given to the state of Georgia, the United States relinquishing her claim to all the territory east of the line, and Georgia relinquishing her claim to all the territory west of the line. The United States also agreed to pay certain sums of money, and to extinguish, as soon as it could be peaceably done upon reasonable terms," the Indian title to all the land east of the line. In pursuance of this agreement, about two thirds of the Indian lands within the state of Georgia, were purchased at different times by the United States, for the benefit of the state, before 1825. At the beginning of that year, another attempt was made to procure an additional cession, but the council of the Creek nation refused to sanction any cession, and broke up after having given that answer. The commissioners, how. ever, went on, and concluded a treaty with a portion of the chiefs, by which all the Creek lands, both in Alabama and Georgia, were ceded to the United States. This treaty was disowned by the Creeks, who executed some of the chiefs conclu. ding it, and banished the residue. The government of the United States, finding it could not be executed without force, annulled that treaty, and concluded another upon more favourable terms for the In dians, which was ratified by a large majority of the senate, and approved by the whole house, excepting the members from Georgia and Alabama. By this treaty, it was intended to cede all the Creek lands within Georgia; but as the boundary line of that state had never been run, it was uncertain whether that intention had been carried into effect; and it was believed that about 200,000 acres still belonged to the Creeks, within the ex parte line claimed by Georgia. To this land, Georgia set up a claim under the treaty which had been annulled, and insisted on entering upon it without regard to the subsequent treaty. The Creeks, under these circumstances, claimed the protection of the United States, and demanded to be left unmolested, upon the lands guaranteed to them by the federal government. The committee thought, that they were entitled to such protection; and inasmuch as the exclusive right of treating with the Indians, and making war upon them, and managing Indian affairs, was granted to the United States; the committee recommended the house to resolve, that it is expedient to procure a cession of the Indian lands in the state of Georgia; and that, until such a cession is procured, the law of the land, as set forth in the treaty of Washington, ought to be maintained by all necessary, con stitutional, and legal means. When the governor of Georgia found by the decisive measures of the president, that he was determined to maintain the authority vested in the executive, he transmitted a letter to the Georgia delegation at Washington, stating his willingness to submit to the determination of congress, and dis claiming any intention of resorting to force, except the sovereignty of the state came into collision with the United States. In the mean time, the president continued his exertions to procure a cession of the Creek lands still remaining within the state, and on the 15th of November, 1827, succeeded in procuring a cession of the remaining strip of land for the sumol $42,591. This terminated the dispute so far as the Creek territory was concerned, in a manner highly creditable to the firmness and discretion of the general govern ment. Another subject of controversy still remains in the Cherokee lands, which cannot be so speedily adjusted, while the councils of Georgia are so much under the influence of feeling and temper. CHAPTER V. Depressed condition of Woollen Manufactures-Tariff of 1824-Alteration of British Tariff-Frauds upon the Revenue-Mr. Mallory's Report and Bill-Discussion in House-Proceedings in Senate-Harrisburg Convention-Division of Opinion. AMONG the leading measures which occupied the attention of congress, at this session, was that for the encouragement of the growth and manufacture of wool. The principles on which this bill was discussed, differing somewhat from those on which, in general, propositions for protecting duties are supported or opposed, it may be necessary to enter somewhat into detail upon the subject. There is undoubtedly a school of political economists, who maintain, that the policy of promoting manu factures at home, by duties laid on the importation of foreign articles, is, without exception, a mistaken and false policy, leading, among other evils, to an absolute waste of property to the amount of the protecting duty. There is an opposite class, who, without regard to the condition of the country, and its aptitude for particular branches of industry, is disposed to force the domestic production of every spe. cies of fabric, by prohibitory du ties on the rival fabric, as imported from abroad. In the popular discussions of the subject, the first class of economists is apt to enforce its doctrines, by showing the oppressiveness of the burdens laid upon consumption, by carrying into operation the views of the second class: while the patrons of an indiscriminate system of prohibitory duties, give a plausibility to their scheme, by dwelling on the salutary effects which have resulted from protecting duties, judiciously laid on the importation of articles either essential to the national wel. fare and strength, or for the manufacture of which the country is fully ripe. The truth evidently here lies partly with each, and wholly with neither. It is not true, that the policy of protecting domestic industry, by duties on the product of fo reign industry, is, without exception, try in the community; and the protection which the state owes to the industry of its citizens, against the effect of measures of. foreign governments, expressly aimed at its subversion. Under a government, when the policy of protecting duties has already been adopted, from whatever consideration, and extensively applied to some branches of industry, the other great interests of the country have a right to expect an equal favour. And under whatever state of things specific foreign legislation is so applied, as to disturb and neutralize the operation of the laws, passed for the proportionate encourage a false or mistaken policy. Instances can be shown, (and the navigation laws of England and America are satisfactory ones,) in which protecting and even prohibitory duties, have not only been most signally productive of beneficial effects, but have been approved by the standard authorities of what is called the liberal school. Adam Smith pronounces the navigation law of England one of the wisest and best in the statute book. On the other hand, nothing is more certain, than that to attempt to force the industry of the country into a direction for which it is not mature, or which is not sufficiently favoured by exter-ment of the various pursuits of the nal physical circumstances, would be followed by a corresponding waste of the public wealth. The so often quoted example of Adam Smith, in reference to the growth of wine in Scotland, is a sufficient illustration of this proposition. Although the arguments often heard in support of domestic manufactures, would seem to go the length of that example; yet, we presume no statesman or legislature would ever be found willing to follow up such an argument, by positive enactment. The question, then, is one of time and measure, considered even in its principles. It is still more so, when we take into view the distributive justice, which is due alike to the several branches of indus citizens of the country, it be. comes the duty of the government, on principles paramount to those of any school of political economy, to counteract the interference. Most of the principles here stated, with the exception perhaps of the last, were brought into review, when the tariff of duties on imports underwent its last general revision in 1824. On that occasion, some of the members of congress, who took the lead in enforcing the sound doctrines of the liberal school, against what they thought an extravagant extension of the protective policy, admitted the expediency, and recommended the provision of some further encouragement of the woollen manufacture, on the ground that this was an article too essential, to be derived solely from a foreign source of supply; that it was one for which the country was not merely mature, but possessed peculiar capacity; and that it was entitled to a greater share of favour than it had yet received, when compared with the manufactures of cotton, iron, and some other arti cles. It is true, however, that opinions on these points were not unanimous, even among the parties interested. The manufacturers feared that an increased duty on foreign cloth would be accompanied (and its beneficial effects to them counterbalanced) by an increased duty on wool. The capitalists, who had embarked in the business, with extensive resources and improved machinery, were inclined to ascribe the languishing condition of the manufacture to the imperfect manner in which it had been hitherto attempted; and feared that the effect of an increased protection would be a destructive domestic competition. From these and other causes, the efforts of those engaged in this manufacture to obtain a substantial increase of protecting duties were less united and earnest, than might otherwise have been expected; and in the final passage of the bill, a smaller increase of duty on foreign cloth was provided for, than was thought requisite by the zealous friends of the measure; and the effect of this It will be immediately seen, that this increase in the duty on wool, caused in effect a reduction of at least five per cent, in the new duty on cloth, which could not inthe united effect of the two duties be regarded as amounting to more than 28 per cent. So that the utmost advantage gained by the woollen manufacturer, in the revision of the tariff was an increase of 3 per cent. in the duty on the rival foreign article. But in addition to this circumstance, there were several ways, in which the American manufacturer lost the advantage of any increased protection, which he might have enjoyed, in the undisturbed operation of the new law. Contemporaneously with the revision of the American tariff in 1824, a revision took place of the English tariff, avowedly with the object of enabling the British manufacturers to command the foreign, and specifically the American market of low priced cloths. In this |