-^^d^ -<>. -.Too / Oo *^f' 0*^ ^ *T^- / '^^o^ /\ 'ft 49^ J"""^ ^ ^ -^^d* ./^^^ r o < •-> ■■' V^' .1-- *o. , "^./ «♦ '^^ A^ ♦^jA^/k'o '^t?*. c'*^"^ **^aic?ik'. '^. ^°-^U:.°- /.'i^-\ c°*.ja^.>o /\.>i^. V^"^' v^;^ .e.^. /% tvT* .A> "% .^^ .^".c i-°-nc. • TTT*' -A .♦^'V ^ ^ •• *« "U>^ ^*'\ ^0 5°^ S oV^^^^ia'- ^oV*" y^^Hi^^y^*^ '^^^'^ Jpy:.. •j*SX^.*,* o J •' V'O' *.( ]e?..a.idio.a.XjIs:m: viiisriDio^TEiD. SENATOR DRAKE, OF MISSOURI, TO SENATOR JOHNSON, OF MARYLAND, PUBLISHED BY THE U>fIOX REPUBMCAN CONGRESSIO^f AL COMMITTEE, U'ASIIINGTON. D. C. WASHINGTON, D. C: PEINTBD AT THE OFFIC£ oP THE GREAT REPUBLIC, 499 ELEVENTH STREET. 1867. " THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY, THE CAUSES WHICH LED TO IT, AND THE DUTY OF THE PEOPLE." Washington, November 9, 1867. jP^bn. Reverdij Johnson : ■ Dear Sir: There has come to me, under your frank, a pamphlet by "AMarylander," the comprehensive title of which is given above. Its having so come, and its senti- ments and style, led me to ascribe its author- ship to you ; and in this I am confirmed by information to that effect from a citizen of Baltimore. It is this in part, if not mainly, which impels me to this notice of the docu- ment. Common men may write and print What they please, and do little harm ; but not so with one of your high position and distin- guished reputation. Tliough cheerfully ad- mitung my inferiority to you in the latter re- spect, I propose, for the sake of ti-uth and right, an esamination and discussion of some positions assumed in this pamphlet, which I consider to involve grave and serious errors of fact and of doctrine. I agree with you in your opening proposi- ticr:. 1»hat ''no reflecting citizen can be insen- sible to (.he dangerous condition of the coun- u. y."' But when we attempt to assign caus- es for that condition we diverge, not again, I l(-nr, to come together. And as you and I diverge, so do the people. The loyal men of the natic^ trace with exact precision and with immovable conviction all our dangers to that rebellion, to sustain which Maryland, though nominally not engaged in it, sent so many men and so much money, and in behalf of which her disloyal people shed, in the streets of your own city, the first blood of that t«rrible four years' war. On the other hand, disloyalists of every shade and degree concur with you in your "obvious answer," that "the course which the legislative depart- ment has pursued has brought the country into this predicament, has been the cause of the present trouble." The loyal men reach their conclusions through examination, study, and reflection, such as theynever before gave to public affairs ; the other class reach theirs by that obliquity of understanding with which a devotee of State rights and Slavery sees nothing in the rebellion but what was right and laudable ; nothing in its overthrow but an outrage ; nothing in the Union but a con- federacy, which any part may, of right, shat- ter at vnll ; nothing in the nation but a loose aggregate of disjointed parts ; nothing in the Constitution but an imbecility ; nothing in anything but his State, which yet, in com- parison vrith the country, is '"'but as a patch on the earth's surface." Between two sTich an- tagonistic bodies it is vain ever to hope for concord, while each is aiming to wield the destiny of the country. Their differences can, in the nature of things, be settled only hy force. The force of war has been tried, with what result history has recorded ; we have now to appeal to the force of numbers at the ballot-box, and history, I do not for an instant doubt, will in due time, and before long, record a similar result on behalf of America's loyal men. But what is the course pursued by Con- gress, which, in yoti^ view, so endangers the country? This: that though " the war ter- minated more than two years and a half since, with complete success, and no armed or other resistance to the Constitution and laws of the United States exists anywhere, yet the Union, ivhich the insurrection for a time suspended, continues suspended, and ten of the States and their people are not only not admitted to equal rights with the rest, but, as far as the legislative department is concerned, are denied them, and subjected to mere military rule." You, Mr. Johnson, have not lived so long without having learned that words are things. When, therefore, you say that the Union was suspended by the insurrection, I suppose you mean what your words import ; and yet, there never was, during the war, a time when the Union was suspended, and it is not suspend- ed now. Had the rebellion been successful, a part of this nation would have become a separate nation, and the Union would have been thereby broken; but never could it be in a state of suspension. Were the people of ten or eleven counties in Maryland to rise in insurrection against the government of that State, and were that government to pro- ceed to put them down by arms, it would be just as correct to say that the union of the insurgents with the body of the people of Maryland was suspended, as to say that the slaveholders' rebellion suspended the union of the people of the United States. For, observe, sir, that in either case it is a uuion of people and not of corporate bodies, wheth- er States or counties. The corporate ca- pacity is the mere shell ; the people are the kernel. And herein is the point of differ- ence between us. From the general tenor of your argument, I suppose you to consider the Union a mere confederacy of States, as corporate bodies ; but I hold it to be no such confederacy, but a real, actual, complete commingling and coalescence of the people. You consider, I take it, that the Union dates from the adoption of the Constitution ; I maintain, and challenge refutation, that the Union existed not only before the Constitu- tion, — else why should that instrument de- clare itself to have been made "in order to form a, more perfect union?" — but before the Confederation, and, moreover, before the Declaration of Independence. , Go to his- tory, and you will see it was so. You hold further, I suppose, that the Union exists only under the Constitution ; I, that it exists outside of the Constitution, and that that m- strument is the mere form of government which the already united people adopted as a bond of union. Blot out the Constitution to- day, and the united people would still exist as a nation. and would, if necessary, extempoi'ize a Government to preserve their Union. The confusion which has attended the dis- cussion of these topics has mainly resulted from the improper and indefensible use of ' the word State. For forty years or more, (with direct reference, as the result has proved, to an eventual attempt at secession and disunion) the doctrine was inculcated, that a State is an independent entity, invest ed with "ultimate and absolute sovereignty" as Alexander H. Stephens phrased it ; an entity, admitted to be somehow in the nation without being actually a part of it ; a wheel in the great national machine, with every part connected with and adjusted to it, but yet capable of being jerked out of its adjust- ment at any moment by its managers, with no right in the managers of the wkole machine to prevent or object. "A State, '^ "my State,''^ " a free, sovereign and indepeudent Steele,^' has been the form of speech, with as little mention as possible of the joeoplc, until at last the true idea of a State seems to have been measurably lost sight of in the dust with which secessionists have enveloped it. The cardinal error in all this— in which ^ I fear, you, Mr. Johnson, participate — is in the notion that, in some occult and indefina- ble way, the people who, before they become a State, are as much in and of the nation as a man's lungs are in and of his body, be- come something else the moment they are organized in a corporate capacity as a State; a sort of separate and segregated element, foreign in some sense to the mass of which it was a moment before an acknowledged part ; a sometking in which the personal idea is merged in the corporate, and the people lost and forgotten in the corporation. Against this utterly unfounded and mischievous view of the matter I have for 3'ears contended ; and I feel it to be of sufficient importance to contend against it still • for, manifestly', the heresy is struggling again for life and mas- tery. Vattel builds the whole system of the law of nations upon the definition of a State as a body politic, a society of mex united to- gether for the. purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength. This definition includes every form of association for the formation of a state, whether it be called a monarchy, an aristocracy, a repub- lic, or a democracy : and in this country it applies equally to the United States, or to a single State. One of the United States, therefore, is nothing but a body of people inhabiting certain defined limits, and united together as a body politic, but at the same time a subordinate part of a larger mass of people, united together as a larger body pol- itic, under a name which itself embraces every State. The people of a State are, therefore, merely a fraction of the whole people of the Union. There is no legerde- main by which you can suspend the connec- tion of the people of a State with the whole mass, an}' m-ore than you can suspend the connection of your arm with your bod}'. Amputation alone can separate in either case. All errors on this subject. Mr. John- son, were, or ought to have been, exploded by the war; and it is vain, if it bt- not wicked, to attempt to revive them now. The nation asserted and maintained its power over every part of its people. '"Our fathers,'" to whom you refer with great apparent rev- erence, declared, and by their descendents it has been proved, past any possibility of future question or doubt from any quarter, that the American people, though divided into m^any distinct States, are a NATION : and it is now equally settled forever, that State or iio State, every part of the people must bow to the lawful power of the whole. How, then, in view of these positions, could you, so long and so justly distinguished as a jurist, say that the Union was suspended by the insurrection ? Was it to give point to the accompanying charge that the Union " cow^mf^es suspended " through the uncon- stitutional and unjustifiable action of Con- gress? Or was it to make way for your sub- sequent assertion that the prior relations of the States are now restored, and that they and their citizens are "entitled to all their righis, as at first ?' ' Or was it to enforce your appeal to the people to restore at the earliest moment to the Southern States all those rights, to rebuke the men who would prevent it, and to condemn the Radicalism of the day? No, Mr. Johnson, the question before the country is not whether the Union "continues suspended"' through the action of Congress. The very decision of Chief Justice Chase quoted by you rejects the idea of a suspen- sion of the Union, and limits the effect of the rebellion to a suspension of the " prac- tical relations " of the rebel States to it, just as the practical relations of husband and wife are suspended during aii angry sep- aration, though their union in marriage still exists. What, then, is the present position of those States and their people, authorizing the action which Congress has seen fit to to take? This is the question, and to it I will now address myself for a time. At the termination of the rebellion the peo- ple of the rebel States were still there, and were, as before, a part of the nation. Nev- er for a moment did they, in fact, cease to be so. True, they for a time threw off the nation's government and put themselves under another ; but their a))solute and final severance from the nation was the only thing that could possibly destroy their union with it. As corporate bodies or States they were for a time out of practical relatione with the Union, but never for an hour out o£ it ; for there never was an hour when the mighty hand of the nation was not upoc them. Their failure to establish anothei % government settled that point beyond coa- troversy. And so, when the rebellion ended, they were, just as before it began, and as throngh its whole career, a part of the nation. How, then, did their position after differ from that before the rebellion ? In this most essential particular, that when their revolt was subdued, and the power of the nation fully re-established over them, they were without any laicful State governments. The people of each rebel State were still the State : their corporate character, which had been received from the nation, still existed ; but their governments were alien and hostile to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore utterly unlawful. And herein is the distinction which solves the whole ques- tion, namely, between people as a part of the nation, organized into a State, and the government which they, in their corporate capacity as a State, possess. The latter may be changed, modified, or overthrown ; but nothing short of successful revolution can sever any portion of the people from the Union. This distinction has not been suffi- ciently observed ; but it is the only one which make^ the whole subject clear. When, therefore, the rebellion was subdued, the State governments which had existed under the Constitution were gone. State governments there were : but they were formed by rebels, as part of the machinery and support of the rebellion, and when the rebellion became a nullity those governments became, as to the nation and the Constitu- tion, nullities too. And so the nation found ten of its States without governments valid under the Constitution. Of course, this con- dition of things could not continue ; those States could not remain without govern- ments. Self-disrobed of the governments which identified them with the nation, who should rehabilitate them? Your idea, I take it, is that they themselves had the right to do so ; but mine is that they had renounced and abjured that right — had followed that renunciation with war, and when subjugated it was not for them to resume their practical relations with the Union at such time and in such form and manner as they pleased, re- gardless of the will of the nation. What, then, was their position ? Exactly that of any portion of the nation for which no law- ful local government has been provided. To what power, then, were they subject? Manifestly to that of the nation, and no other. And to this irresistible conclusion ' we come — in spite of all sophistry and spe- cial pleading — that to the nation and to it alone could they look fori rightful authority to proceed in the formation of lawful State governments, just as the people of newly settled Territories must look to the same power. The right of Congress, therefore, to pro- vide governments for the rebel States does not depend, as you allege, upon the doctrine that " the insurrection, before it was sup- pressed, assumed such proportions as made it a war, and brought it within the war pow- er vested in that body by the Constitution." I am content to put the war power wholly out of view, and to rest the right of Con- gress in the premises upon the broad prop- osition that, in the very nature of the case, it results from the fact of our national existence, that when any portion of the people of the nation are v)ithout a lawful local government, Territorial or State, there is no power on earth but that of thenation which can authorize them, to form one; and that the nation, in this matter, can ad only through its Congress. In such a case the President has not a shadow of au- thority, except as it may be vested in him by that body. As you well know, his prov- ince is to execute laws, not to frame govern- ments. It matters not from whom the claim of executive power in this particular pro- ceeded, whether from Mr. Lincoln or his successor ; come whence it may, it is wholly unwarranted by the Constitution. If, then, the direction of the reorganiza- tion of governments in the rebel states is the province of the nation,^ it necessarily follows that Congress is supremely unrestricted as to the time when, and the mode i-n which it will act in the premises. If it chose fco leave those States for a time jnst as it found them at the downfall of the rebellion, what power could make it move, or could, without its authority, set the machinery of reorganiza- tion in motion? If it decides to put the T«bels under military rule until new .State ■governments, loyal to the Union, and formed under the authority and direction of the na- tion, shall have risen over the ruins of those which sprung from a bastard and piratical confederacy, who .shall gainsay it? And ■what injustice, pray, is there to the rebels in that? bid they not first appeal to arm_s? In so doing did they not invoke upon them- selves all the consequences, near and remote, present and future, actual and contingent, of their atrocious act ? And shall they now whine because, whipjDed at their own game, the victorious nation puts its military grip upon tliem ? But the supreme authority of Congress in the case, is not, and cannot be, confined to the time and mode of reorganization in the rebel States. If it has any power over the subject it has all, unless you can point to some restraining clause in the Constitution ; which, with all due respect for your greater age and experience at the bar and in the Senate, I defy you to do. The fact is, Mr. Johnson, turn from it as you may, do all you can to put it out of sight, or yourself out of sight of it, still the great truth comes back, inevitable as the sun, that the power of Congress begins at the earliest inception of the work, follows it in all the stages and p.articulars of its progress, and ends only when the reorgaiiizationis by itself declared complete. Hence the resistless conclusion, that when Congress moves in the matter of authorizing any portion of the people to form a State government, it alone has the power, as it is ks impei-ative duty, to decide and declare ivho of that people shall have a voice in the formcction thereof. If it has not this power, it has none, or at any rate none of any practical valne. If the people in such case have a right to proceed to form a government, without any declaration by Congress on that vital point, whence do they get that right ? Certainly not from any law. If they have no law for it, they act, if they act at all, merely by sufferance, and their work has no legal validity until sanctioned by Congress. I do not forget that States have been organized without any previous enabling act of Congress; but they were not subjugated rebel States, and their cases therefore are not precedents applicable to the matter in hand. But here, perhaps, may be invoked the heresy of independent and iaiherent SUite rights, or as Washington stigmatized it, "that bantling, sovereignty." I will not stop to discuss this rotten core of the rebellion. Has not the nation in the last seven years ©utlived all respect for it? As Jeff. Davis said, "Secession was the legitimate consequence of State sovereign- ty. ' ' Thci two lived together, ' ' fought, bled, and died " together, and are buried together, with no day of resurrection in prospect. Even your trumpet-blast, Mr. Johnson, can- not rescue State sovereignty from its grave with the rebellion. Thus far I have refrained from reference to any particular provision of the Constitu- tion as warranting the legislation of Congress over the rebel States, and have deduced its right in that respect from our very existence as a nation, and the imperative necessity of the case. I would willingly rest it, before any impartial and enlightened tribunal, upon that ground alone. But you have appealed to the Constitution, and to that let us go. You assert that in legislating for the South- ern States, and subjecting them to the mili- tary power, Congress not only disregards the Constitution, but acts without authority from the people of the United States ; and you characterize as "absurdity" and "folly"- its claim of constitutional right to do these acts. Per contra. I hold that its le,gislatvon toward the reconstruction of those States finds a clear and ample warrant in that clause of the Constitution which requires that " The United States SHALL guarantee to EVERY State in this Union a republican FORM OF government." I have endeavored, and I trust not unsuc- cessfully, to show that when any portion of the people of the nation are without a lawful State government, it is the province of Con- gress alone to provide it for them. Let me in this connection, remind you again, that "the United States" means the people of the United States, and that a State means the people of a State. Neither has, or can have, any existence but in the people. The guar- anty in the above clause is, therefore, a promise by the whole people of the United States to every part of the people, whether organized into States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, or thereafter at any time to become so. To the reflecting mind there is nowhere in the Constitution a moj'e fatal blow to State rights heresies, or a more complete vindication of the supremacy of the nation over its every part. Under that clause Congress has an unrestricted and illimitable right to control the primal organ- ization of State governments, so far as to secure to the people thereof a republican form of government. The right to live undersuch a government is solemnly pledged to every man, woman, and child in every State ; and every man, woman, and child ia 8 the nation is concerned in the fulfilment of that pledge to every other. This is not the time nor the place for a gene- ral discussion of that clause. At another time and in another place I may have occa- sion to consider it in reference to the State with which you are officially identified, when, perhaps, you may get a clearer, if not a more pleasant, view of the wide sweep and tran- scendent power of a provision which has heretofore lain dormant in the Constitution, and would have probably still slept, but for the grasp at supremacy which rebelism has made in that State and others. At present let us stick to our text, and look at the clause in connection with the rebel States. No trained juridical mind like yours can fail to see that that clause looks to action by Congress in two cases : first, in that of ini- iiatinga. Stategovernment when none before existed ; and, Sixondly, in that of a State government already existing. In the former it is the duty of Congress to take all needful steps to insure that the government about to be established shall be republican. In the latter it is equally its duty to institute neces- sary measures to set aside an unrepublican, and institute a republican, form of gov- ernment. I have previously shown that the rebel States were destitute of lawful governments. Congress, in the exercise of its sole and ex- clusive authority in such case, has solemnly affirmed that fact, even liy a constitutional majority over the President's veto: and no earthly power can at any time or in any forum set aside its affirmation. The case is, there- fore, »ne of iniiiating State governments, and to that alone 1 will direct my remarks. In reference to it. my first and fundamen- tal proposition is, that, as Congress is charged vnth the general duty of securing to the people of every State a republican form of government, without any specification in the Constitution of when or how it shall per- form that duty, the inevitable inference is, that the ichen and the hoic are left entirely to the judgment of Congress, whose decision I cannot be reversed or revised liy any other | authority. j My second proposition is, that when Con- \ gress decides that it is necessary for it to j supervise and guard the initiatory steps in the establishment of a State government, so as to secure its republican character, it has power to '' make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into effect" ' tiie power vested by the Constitution in it, and that it alone has the right to judge what laws are necessary and proper to that end. My third proposition is, that the designa- tion, in advance, of the persons in any com- munity who shall have a voice in the forma- tion of the contemplated government, is a necessary and proper means toward guaran- teeing that the form of government shall be republican. My fourth and last proposition is, that, in designating in the reconstruction acts who in the rebel States shall have such voice, Con- gress has decided it to be a necessary and proper step toward fulfilling the constitu- tional guaranty in tliose States ; and its de- cision on that point is final and conclusive against all the world. I have purposely confined myself to the mention in this connection of the single point of the antecedent designation by Con- gress of the persons to have a voice in the formation of governments in the reV>el States; because you, Mr. Johnson, know, as does every well-informed man in the nation, that therein centres the whole struggle over re- construction. You and every such man know that if the reconstruction acts had left the formation of governments in those States to v-liite men exclusively, there would have been no such struggle. It is against the brave and generous stand taken by Congi-ess in securing to the negko a voice in that icork that the rebels and their Northern Dem- ocratic allies kick. Military rule would not have galled the South, but for the protection it gave Mm in that regard. Exclusion of the rebel States from Congress would have hcen counted abagaielle if no ballot had been jiut into 7t/s hand. The South would to-day gladly agree to such military rule and sxtch exclusion for half a century to come, if guar- anteed against negro suffrage. ^\Tiy? Be- cause negro svffrage is an inqnegnable bar- rier to his practical re-enslavement. With all my heart I glory in the course of Con- gress in this respect; not, as God is my judge, because I hate the rebels, or would humili- ate a fallen foe. hut because it is RIGHT that the negro should be in every particular A CITIZEN, and because I can see no glimmer of hope for the peace of the countrj- but iu his complete enfranchisement. Had Congress done otherwise than it did, it would have left the reorganization of the Southern States to the very reljcls who had disorganized them, and whose embattled ar- ray the arms of the nation had just dispersed, but, unhappily, without sul)duing the spirit of rebellion in them. And more and worse, it woitld have shut out from that part of the work the only portion of the Southern people who, through good report and evil report, were, from first to lasst,. loyal to the Union. How that would have resulted I need not say ; we saw it all, with deep and burning humiliation, under the experiment of '' My policy. ^^ Had Con- gress done that, it would have deserved, and 9 I trust, received, from the lo3'al people of the country a bitterer execration than ever fell upon any body of public servants in this land. But it took the truer, \viser, more manly, and more patriotic course, and de- clared that the long-enslaved, sorely-tried, but always patient, magnjinimous, and loyal negro, should have, in the ballot, the means of protecting in himself and securing to his posterity the nation's gift of his freedom. Had it done less, of what value would tli it freedom have been to him ? Of just as much as your money to you, with a robber's pistol at your head and a demand for your money or your life, and you with not so much as a pen-knife for your defence. Strong language, Mr. Johnson, but the whole nation knows it to be true. From the determination of Congress thus to arm the negro for self-protection may have come in some degree the delay in the work of reconstruction ; not because there was in this fact itself any just cause of delay, but be- cause the rebels, backed by a faithless Pres- ident, determined to resist, and are still re- sisting, in every way short of actual appeal to force, the negro's enfranchisement. And this resistance is not because of the mere fact of his enfranchisement, but because, enfranchised, he will not vote, and cannot be got to vote, with rebels or for rebels, or at their dictation. Could he be made, as he was while in slavery, the abject tool of his rebel master, the work of reconstruction would glide smoothly on to completion, to the entire satisfaction of the rebels, but at the same time to the swift degradation and final despair of the negro, and to the blasting and eternal disgrace of this nation. If, therefore, it were true, as you allege, that the Union '• continues suspended,- it is not, as you say, "on account of the course which the legislative department has pursued," for that course was just, honest, and right before God and the nations of the earth ; but it is because the subjugated reb- els resisted the right, and persisted in the wrong. Let them, if they please, under the counsels of able and venerable men like yourself, prolong their efforts to keep the negro down ; but they will learn that he cannot be kept down, if the nation keeps its honor with them; anu it will KEEP IT ! No cry of danger to our insti- tutions will .stay its resistless march to this grand consummation. No appeal to the people against the subjugation of ten States to negro rule will avail ; for the loyal people of the nation will answer back with a shout, Better to the loyal negro, than to the rebel white man ! Least of all is it of use to go back, as yon do, to the Crittenden resolution of July, 1801, which declared that "this war is not waged for any purpi'se of con- quest or subjugation, or purpose of over- throwing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union, wifh all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired." Why, sir, you might as well, in etymology, appeal from Webster's Unabridged to the New England Primer. Is it possible, Mr. Johnson, that you have not yet learned, that what little life that resolution had was trampled out of it in blood before it was half a year old ? Why dig up its .shrivelled carcass at this late day to fill the air with mustiness ? Did you not see that as tl^c- robellion grew in propor- tions the nation outgrew (Congressional swad- dling clothes and expanded into giantship? Know you not that the war ii-'frpreted itself as a war of '•subjugation?' Have -you never discovered that, in spite of that reso- lution, it came to be a war which didoverthrow, and could not help "overthrowing, establish- ed in.stitutions of those States," just as it was a war whicli did kill, and could not help killing, rebels? Have you yet to learn tluit, long since, the " dignity " of those States fell to zero ; that their "equality" vfasfelo de se; and that thefr "rights" lapsed into the hands of an insulted and outraged nation, to be restored to them only when, how, and in what form and measure that nation pleased ? All this is recorded in blood upon the pages of history ; and why, Mr. Johnson, have you not seen the record, or, seeing, have not understood it? "Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest" it now, I pray you, for it conveys a mighty lesson. There is much more in your pamphlet which might with propriety be noticed; but this letter is already so extended that I must draw it to a close. One or two other points, however, cannot be passed over, and on them I will bestow a few words. It seems, Mr. Johnson, that yoti deem it the best way to touch the people through the pocket nerve, and to reach that sensitive or- gan you roll out the following broad asser- tions: " Ten of the States and their people are not only not admitted to equal rights with the rest, but, so fiir as the legislative de- partment is concerned, a'-e denied them, and subjected to mere military rule. The conse- quence is that the whole potential wealth of uiiose States is, and will be as long as the present state of things continues, lost to the nation. Its great staples of sugar, rice, and cotton, which in the past so materially contributed to the general welfare, are not and cannot be produced. They nerved the arm of industry in all the other States as 10 inch as, if not more than, in the South. 'hey enriched commerce, supplied the needs f the manufacturing inrlustry of the East, irnished the best markets for its products, ave employment and remunerative wages 3 its employees, and increased the revenue f the country by increasing its imports. lS long as this political disorganization re- gains, the more destructive will it be to the iterests of all. What has brought the onntry into this predicament ? The answer ; obvious. It is the course which the leg- ;lative department has pursued. * ""' '••' I cannot, the author believes, be doubted lat that course has been the cause of the resent trouble." Whatever else may be said of you, Senator, must be admitted that you are a brave man. one but a brave man would conceive and xecute such an attack as that. But did it ot occuj to you that there might be rashness 1 your bravery ? Did you suppose that such aarges could be laid at the door of Congress, ith nothing at all at that of the South, and obody question the truth of your assertions r arraign your tenderness for the rebels? he loyal men of the uation have been wont ) think that some little of the business trou- le of the country could fairly and reason- bly be charged upon the rebellion and the 3 miplications necessarily resulting therefrom; lit that idea, it appears, has yet to dawn pon your mind. They have some faint im- ressi' n that those ten States would never ave 1 irit an atom of their rights had they not jbelled; but no glimmer of that seems yet ) have reached you. But, in the name of !1 logic, where is the connection between the ^elusion of those States from the halls of ongress and the loss to the nation of their whole potential wealth," or anypartof it? am concerned to know how the non-repre- mtation of those States in Congress prevents le production of sugar, rice, and cotton. /Tiat is tiie modus operandi ? I am really sarching for cause and effect in the case, nd have not yet discovered it, and your usual onsiderateness has not led you to point out. But in sober ti-uth, Mr. Johnson, do 3u really believe that a single pound more ^ sugar or cotton, or a single quart more of ce, would be produced in the Southern bates by the admission into Congress of their enators and Representatives? Of course, )u believe no such enormous absurdity ; )u only intimated it in a Pickwickian ;nse. But perhaps you mca.u to charge more di- ictly upon military ride the unhappy re- dts'you have depicted. If so, can you point a single instance where the military au- orities have interfered wth the prodvwstion ' those gte^'lp? ? If you could^ why nbt have done so? If not, why make the charge? As you have not, shall I venture to supply your omission ? May it not be that military rule iias so interfered when it protected the other- wise unprotected freedman from compulsory labor for a pittance that would not keep soul and body together, and secured for him some- thing like decent wages ? To come straight to the point, Mr. Johnson, is not the defi- cient production in that region, so fiir as it may be traced to other than natural and pro- vidential causes, the necessary result of the conflict between the former master on th'e one hand, intent on forcing the negro back into a practical slavery no whit less abject, except in name, than his previous condition of bondage ; and on the other, the manly and determined resistance of the negro to so base and galling a degradation ? Hundreds of thousands of the American people believe itis; and if it is, before God I say that the country had better go without Southern production of sugar, rice, and cotton for a hundred years to come, than abandon the millions of it3 colored citizens there to so foul a wrong, so cruel and hopeless a fate. Sir, this great nation cannot afford to write itself down a scoundrel. Another grave charge which you make against the claims of Congressional power in the premises is, that " they keep alive a spirit of hostile and bad feeling between the people of the South and of the North, which must act detrimentally (o the good of all." And you say, '• To that good fraternal affection is absolutely necessary. Without it we will continue to be, as during the war, enemies, instead of being, as we should be, now that the war is ended, friends." Mr. Johnson, you claim to be a man of honor and truth, and I am very far from ques- tioning that claim ; but how you oould pen that charge, and believe it to be true, I ara unable to see. For seven long years a spirit of hostility, unsurpassed among Christian people, has "fired the Southern heart" to- ward the people of the North, blazing out everywhere and in every form all over the rebel States, with a fury defying all quench- ing, all mitigation, all soothing; anditburns there now, with no less intensity than in the fiercest days of the war. During the greater part of that long period there has not been a moment of time when the South, if it had the power and had dared, would not have cut the throat of every " damned Yankee" in the nation. They would do it now, if they could. And their present bloodthirsty spirit is not intensified by the action of Congress, beyond what it would have been by any action which deprived them of power to rule the nation whioh had crushed their rebellion and their nascent Empire of Slavery. On tlie 11 other hand, I defy you to point to any such malignant manifestation in the North toward them, befoi-e, during, or since the war. Never on earth were a people freer from malice in the prosecution of a war than the people of the North were in theirs with the rebellion : and the measures adopted by Congress since the rebellion have been as little prompted by malignity. We could, dou])tless, after its overthrow, have shown our "' fraternal affec- tion"" for the ruthless slayers of our fathers, sons, and brothers, by instantly restoring them, as you would now, to all the rights they had before they rebelled; but what would that have been but to give up all we had fought for, exact no .security for the fu- ture, and, moreover, actually reward them for their diabolical deeds of revolt and mur- der? Kentucky did that in 18G5, in a gush of magnanimity more Kentuckianthan loyal, and now her patriots are under the heels of the very rebels they had fought and conquer- ed. Maryland, too, not in a ;^ush of mag- nanimity, but in cold blood, and with the de- liberate purpose to restore her rebel soldiers and citizeais to the ballot and to office, has done the same in 1867 ; and there, too, the rebels are triumphant over their conquerors. What have those States gained by their vol- imtary self- degradation? Contempt, sir, only contempt, from every true patriot in the nation. Justthat would Congress have gained, had it proved as recreant as Kentucky and Maryland. Wc might have shaken hands with the rebels all round much more easily than bound them over to keep the peace, and made thenr powerless for future evil ; but when should we have washed the prints of their blood-stained fingers from the institu- tions of the country? Had we shaken hands with them in that spirit of maudlin sentimen- tality, could we have looked without a blush of shame upon the graves of the more than quarter million of heroes who died to save those institutions for us? Sir, I 3!xid just now that this great nation could not afl"ord to write itself down a scoundrel ; I say now that it can no more afford t© write itself down a fool. And j-et "the dangerous condition of the country, ' ' about which I agreed with you at the first, is a hundredfold more in the probability of its doing that very thing, than of its exercising undue or unconstitutional severity towawl the South. So magnani- mously forgiving and forgetful are the Ameri- can people, that probably nothing but a con- viction of supreme obligation to their rescued country and to posterity could have kept their hands upon the rebels until lujw. That con- viction is the offspring of Radicalism — nay, is Radicalism itself. When it ceases to ani- mate them, the danger to the nation and to the eause of human freedom will be more im- minent than any from the rebellion in the very height of its power and success. (3ne point more, and I have doae. In im- mediate connection -nnth the last quotation from your pamphlet you use the following language : " The only way of correcting this sad state of things is for the people to dismiss from power at the earliest moment the servants who maintain the constitutional doctrines herein contested, and to select others who will administer the Government in the spirit and under the constitutional restraints which guided our fathers. It must gladden the hearts of all considerate, patriotic citizens that the recent elections ilemotistrate that this is about to be done. In the Pacific, East, West, and Middle States, this has been manifested. The people of all sections are evidently determined on having this result."' Perhaps so, Mr. Johnson ; perhaps not. How readily the wish is father to the thought ! The October elections, to which you refer — and you may throw in with them those of November, too — prognosticate no such result. The Democracy are welcome to all the crumbs of success they can pick up in the odd years; the Republicans will tak* the loaves in the even years. The net Democratic gain in the recent elections, so far as national politics is concerned, is one United States Senator. At this rate, with but eleven Democrats and Johnsouites now in the Senate to start with, how many years will it take to overthrow the Republican ascendency there ? More, per- haps, Mr. Johnson, than you or I may live. And until that ascendency is overcome, what hope is there of Southern[rebels and Northern Democrats (par nobilc fratrum!) gaining control of the Government? Meantime, what becomes of reconstruction? It marches straight on to completion under the acts oi Congress as they are., negro suffrage and all. There is not a Republican Senator that would dare — even if he wished — to vote for their repeal, or for any retrograde movement from the positions taken in them. The recent elections, therefore, have no solid comfort for you, nor do they intimidate or discourage true Radicals anywhere. Men who stand up for principle as they do, are not dismayed or disconcerted by casual and temporaiy rever- ses, but rather spurred to more resolute bat- tle for the right. You say that "Radicalism has never any settled, wholesome, or generous policy." That is just such an estimate as a representa- tive of Maryland conservatism might be ex- pected to have, but it is one about which there is some little room for "an honest dif- ference of opinion." I, for instance, with, I believe, a large majority of the nation, see in the Radicalism of the country, in this 12 critical juncture, a ''settled policy" against rebel rule at the ballot-box or in the halls of Congress, a " wholesome policy'' in the su- premacy of loyalty and loyal men in every department of the Government, and a " gen- erous policy" in the protection and enfran- chisement of the only friend of the Union in the South during the war, the neguo, for more than two hundred years a chattel and a slave ; now, through liadicalisvi, afreedman and a free citizen forever ! Here, Senator, at the close, as in the outset, we diverge. Cling, if you please, to purblind, droning, effete Conservatism, and drift with it into the realms of the rejected and the forgotten ; but I will hold on to living, clear-sighted, reso lute, and progressive Radicalism, be its fate what it may. If Americans, in this the me- ridian of their military renown, have not cour- age, persistence, and nerve to uphold such Radicalism as upheld and saved their country in the day of its deadliest peril, they will only exhibit a dishonoring example of a people unsurpassed in martial valor and achieve- ment, but too timid for great civil conflicts, too feeble for sharp moral exigencies, top . fickle for earnest struggles for the right, and too small for the mould of a grand and noble destiny. With a high and unfaltering faith that they will add no such dark page to the already gloomy history of republics, I am, Very respectfully, your obd't serv't, C. D. Drake, MEMORIAL. / CHEROKEE NATION, Near Fort Gibson, April 10, 1842. To his Excellency the President of the United. Slates : Honored Sir : The undersigned, on behalf of that portion of the Indian family long known as the " Western Chcrokees," beg leave to address you on a subject vitally important both to their nation and to the Government of the United States. A crisis in their affairs has arrived which requires prompt and energetic action; and they enter upon the task assigned to them by a solemn sense of duty, with sen- timents of respect and veneration for the constituted authorities of the United States, tvhich have heretofore governed all their actions. They have complaints to make which can no longer be with safety deferred ; and they will endeavor, in doing so, to divest themselves of all unkind feelings against those from whom they have suf- fered wrong, and base their appeal upon provisions made by law and treaty stipula- tions. At the close of President Jefferson's administration, a council was held with the Cherokee people upon a proposition to effect a separation, upon which occasion that venerated patriot speaks to them as follows : '* The United States, my children, are the friends of both parties, and, as far as can be reasonably asked, they are willing to satisfy the wishes of both. Those who wish to remove are permitted to send an ex- ploring party to reconnoitre the country on the- waters of Arkansas and White rivers, and the higher up the better, as they will be the longer unapproached by our settle- ments, which will begin at the mouth of those rivers. When this party shall have found a country suiting the emigrants, and not claimed by other Indians, we will arrange with them and you the exchange of that for a just portion of the country they leave, and to a part of which, proportioned to their numbers, they have a right." This was the assurance given by the President of the United States, on the 9th day of January, 1809, in reply to a petition from a deputation of the then existing two parties of the Cherokee nation, designated as the " upper and loiocr towns." The whole communication breathes kindness and encouragement, and lays the groundwork of all subsequent action upon the plan of organizing an Indian go- vernment west of the Mississippi river. It recognizes the division of the Cherokee tribe, and from that period they have been known as the eastern and western, or emigrant and anti-emigrant party. In 1817 the first treaty arrangement was entered into between the United States and the Cherokees, predicated upon, and in pursu- ance of, the promise made by the President in 1809, although many of the emigra- ting party had already located upon the land referred to, on Arkansas and White rivers. The commissioners who negotiated this treaty had the whole previous cor- respondence between the Government and Cherokees before them, and understood the intentions, wishes, and true interests of both parties. Its 3d and 4th articles make provision for a final separation of the Western from the Eastern Cherokees, and expressly stipulate that their property shall thcrcnftcr be held separately, and that the annuities arising from the sale of their lands shall be divided between them in proportion to their numbers. The 5th article provides for the exchange of lands; and the interest conveyed by the United States is clearly vested in the western party. In 1819 a convention was held by the Hon. John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, with a delegation of Eastern Cherokees, who " expressed their earnest desire to remain east of the Mississippi river;" at which convention they stipulated for their future residence in the east, confirmed the separation from their western brethren, and agreed that their annuity should be paid thereafter, iuw-thirds to the Eastern, and one-third to the western Cherokees. But a few years had elapsed after the consummation of this arrangement, when the Western Cherokees again found themselves surrounded by whhe people, and the Government manifested a desire to obtain the lands they occupied for its own citizens. Accordingly a new treaty was negotiated in 1828, between the Hon. James Barbour, Secretary of War, and a delegation of Western Cherokees, by which the latter exchanged their lands in Arkansas for the country they at present occupy. T'he preamble to this treaty explains the causes which lead to its negotiation, and the 1st and 2d articles define the limits of the new country, with the solemnly pledged guarantee that seven millions of acres, with a perpetual outlet west, shall be and remain theirs forever. It was made exclusively with the Western Cherokees; they were alone responsible for its conditions; and if the bargain had been a bad one, if the lands received in exchange had been found less valuable than those relinquished in Arkansas, they alone could sufler. No interest of their eastern brethren was sacrificed, or even involved in the bargain and sale, or exchange of these lands. The 7th article clearly establishes this position, by the stipulation that the ''Western Cherokees will leave all the lands to which they are entitled in Arkansas, and which was secured to them by the treaty of 8th 3uly, 1817, and the convention of 27th February, 1819," when not one acre of land was relinquished on the east of the Mississippi river, although an invitation is extended to the Eastern Cherokees to join their western brethren, and the most liberal provision is made for emigrants, especially from the ''chartered limits of the Slate of Georgia." The undersigned can refer with pride to the progress of emigration under the treaty of 1828. The United States encountered no difficulty or delay in procuring the removal of the Western Cherokees to the country assigned them. They came promptly and cheerfully into the wilderness, and overcoming every obstacle incident to a first settlement, they in a short time dotted it with their habitations and rich cultivated fields. When the commissioners came to treat with them in 1833, they were rapidly advancing in improvement and civilization. This treaty was con- cluded at Fort Gibson, on the 14th of February, 1833, and to its provisions the atten- tion of the Chief Magistrate is now earnestly solicited. It is the last to which the United States and the Western Cherokees are parties; and upon its provisions we base our hopes of obtaining redress for the series of wrongs we have sustained since the usurpation upon our rights under the treaty of 1835. Its caption distinguishes the parties to it, as ''commissioners on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and head-men of the Cherokee nation of Indians west of the Mississippi, they being duly authorized and empowered by their nation." The preamble again designates the Indian party as the "chiefs and head-men of the Cherokee nation west of the Mississippi," and fully and conclusively proves that the United States and the Wes- tern Cherokees were the sole parties to the treaty of 1833. The Eastern Cherokees were consulted by neither party on the subject of this treaty ; they had no delegation attending the council; offered no opinion or advice concerning the arrangements to be made; and manifested no anxiety about the settlement of boundaries, which were intended to limit the Cherokee country forever. They were at that time entirely indifferent about the affairs of their western brethren, and remained quietly at home attending to their own interests. Having now shown the existence of two distinct and separate bands of the old Cherokee nation, ever since the year 1809; that they divided their property by the treaty of 1817 and convention of 1819; that in 1828 the Western Cherokees treated with the United States for aw exchange of la?ids, as a separate and independent nation ; and that this nation, thus constituted, is the sole party in interest with the United ^^^ot'^'Hf^ 3 States to the treaty ol 14th February, 1833, the undersigned now submit its provi- sions for your serious consideration. The object of the Government in making this treaty, as avowed at the lime, was to "adjust and settle boundary lines between the Cherokees and Creeks, and other neighboring tribes, about which there was some dispute ;" and also to fix definitely and permanently the boundaries of the Cherokee country, in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of 1828. These boundaries are established by the 1st article, and a title to the lands, in fee simple, confirmed to the Cherokees, with the solemn promise, on behalf of the United States, "that letters patent shall be issued as soon as practicable for the land hereby guarantied." This treaty contains no proviso for the admission of the Eastern Cherokees, similar to that contained in the 4th article of the Creek treaty concluded at the same time, which expressly provides ''that the land assigned to the Muscogee Indians, shall be taken and considered as the pro- perty of the whole Muscogee or Creek nation, as well of those now residing upon the land as the great body of said nation, who still remain on the east side of the Mississippi." No condition of this kind can be found in the Cherokee treaty. It contains a complete and absolute surrender, by the United States, to the Western Cherokees, of all title and jurisdiction to, or over, the ceded lands. It makes no reference lo, or reservation under, any existing law of the United States, but on the contrary it repeats, by its 3d article, that clause in the treaty of 1828 wherein the United States "agrees to give the Cherokees a plain set of laws, and survey their lands at the cost of the Government, whenever they desired to own them individu- ally." The act of Congress of May, 1830, cannot affect the tenure to these lands, as no reference is made to it by the treaty under which the Cherokees derive their title. and that law is intended exclusively to enable the President to eflect an exchange of lands with Indians residing east of the Mississippi, for an equal number of acres west of said river, in pursuance of the long settled policy of the Government. There was no exchange of lands made by the treaty of 1833. It only confirmed the title vested in the Cherokees by the treaty of 1828, which was concluded two years anterior to the passage of the law referred to. Hence, the undersigned declare the opinion, always entertained by their people, that a full and absolute title, in fee simple, to the seven millions of acres rcith the outlet, passed from the United States to the Chero- kees, by the treaty of 1833, as fully and effectually as any cession of lands could be made by treaty, concluded between the United States and Spain, or France, or any otl>er Government or people. This title was confirmed by the ratification of the treaty on the 12th of April, 1834, and no subsequent law or treaty stipulation can change it, or impair the rights conveyed and guarantied, without the assent of the Western Cherokees, as a party to such law or treaty. Having thus, we humbly believe, clearly shown, by existing treaty stipulations, that the Western Cherokee nation, as organized under the treaty of 1817, are the rightful owners of the soil now contended for by the Eastern Cherokees, the undersigned present this humble memorial to you as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, and implore your aid and protec- tion in this effort on behalf of their people to obtain their just rights. The Western Cherokees, by their energy and perseverance, obtained this last resting place for their nation — they secured to themselves and their posterity, a territory embracing altogether at least fourteen millions acres of land; and made other provisions for the benefit of their people. They were the pioneers who first tilled the ground on the extreme western border of your extended territory. Placed in the vicinity of the then wild and savage tribes of this frontier, and subjected to their long continued depredations, the first years of their emigration was exhausted in protecting their property and themselves against incursions from their lawless neighbors. Thus did the Western Cherokees — the old settlers — the Pilgrims under the treaty of 1817, toil and struggle lo obtain the settled home in the far west, promised them by the "^—uSl. President of the United States as early as 1809. Where arc these people now, and where are the rights and immunities so often promised, and at last solemnly pledged to them? Why, they are aliens in their own country, with another people and other laws ruling over them. And this usurpation has been perpetrated under the apparent sanction and authority of the New Echota treaty of 1835 — not by those who negotiated that treaty with the United States, but by the very men who op- posed the arrangement, from its inception to its confirmation, and who do not now acknowledge its validity. The undersigned do not complain against their Eastern brethren for making that treaty, but they do complain and protest against some of its conditions. It was a transaction between the United States and the Eastern Cherokees, bargaining for a cession of the lands held by the latter, east of the Mississippi, in which the Western Cherokees had no concern. It could not legally affect any rights secured to them by former treaties, without their full and voluntary consent and approbation. But what are its stipulations? The United States contracts to pay the Cherokees five millions of dollars for a relinquishment of all their lands and possessions east of the Mississippi river, and then agrees to give them a country in the west, in accordance with the provisions of the act of May 28, 1 S30. And the country thus provided and given in exchange for that obtained from the Cherokees east, embraces the verp tract of land solemnly guarantied to the Western Cherokees by the treaty of 1833, and for which, by the condition of that treaty, they ought then to have been in pos- session of a patent from the United States. The undersigned earnestly solicit the President's attention to this portion of their complaint. They ask him to examine the provisions of the treaty of 1833, which has never been repealed or annulled by any act to which the Western Cherokees have been a party; and then read the conditions of the New Echota treaty, for a plain and palpable violation of these provisions. The United States assumes, by the treaty of 1835, to bo the owner of the country transferred to the Western Cherokees by the treaty of 1828, in exchange for their lands in Arkansas, and confirmed with a/t'g simyle title by the treaty of 1833 ; and cedes this country, whole and entire, to the Eastern Cherokees^ either as a gratuity or in exchange for their lands east of the Mississippi. In order to obtain a clear understanding of the terms of the New Echota treaty, we will quote such portions of it as have a bearing upon the present question. The preamble gives a resolution of the Senate, which says: "That a sum not exceeding five millions of dollars be paid to the Cherokee Indians for all their lands and po'ssessions east of the Mississi])pi river." This would be, to all intents and purposes, a sale and purchase, with a full consideration paid. The first article, however, varies the terms expressed in the above resolution, and reads thus: ''The Cherokee nation hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States all the lands owned, claimed, and possessed, cast of the Mississippi river, and hereby release all their claims vpon the United States for spoliations of every kind, for and in consideration of the sum of five millions of dollars," &c. But the same article contains an agreement to subuiit this question again for the consideration of the Senate. The second article then describes the boundaries of the country secured to the Western Cherokees by the treaty of 1833, quoting the very words of that treaty and then, preparatory to its cession, to the Eastern Cherokees, i\\\s ixxiicXc provides that: "Whereas, it is apprehended by the Cherokees, that in the above cession there is not contaiued sufficient quantity of land for the accommodation of the whole nation, on their removal west of the Mississippi, the United States, in con- sideration of the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, therefore, hereby covenant and agree, to convey to said Indians and their descendants, by patent in fee simple, an additional tract of land, which is described and estimated to contain eight hun- dred thousand acres." By the third article the whole country is then conveyed as follows: " The United Slates also agree, that the lands above ceded by tlic treaty of February 1 4th, 1833, including the outlet, and those ceded by this treaty, shall be included in one patent, executed to the Cherokee nation of Indians by the President of the United States, according to the provisions of the act of May 28, 1830." The undersigned now submit the question : '' Would not the annexation of the additional tract of eight hundred thousand acres, for a consideration paid therefor, clearly prove that th« $5,000,000 was to be received as payment in full for the hinds ceded in the east, and that the party who sold it must provide a country for them- selves ; if the United States had not, at the same time, and by the same act, ceded to them the lands of the Western Cherokees?" The inference to be drawn from these acts, are plain and manifest: The United States are either bound to pay for all the lands conveyed to the Eastern Cherokees, out of its own funds, or else the bal- ance of the $5,000,000, after deducting the $500,000 paid for the additional tract, should be applied for that purpose. The Government, it is presumed, did not in- tend to pay both in money and lands, for the possessions relinquished by the Eastern Cherokees, otherwise it would not have demanded payment for its own lands given in exchange. By the convention of 1 8 19, it was estimated that the Western Cherokees com- prised one-third of the old nation, and the annuities have since been divided and paid in that proportion. If, then, they were possessed of seven millions of acres, with an outlet of the same extent, estimated together as containing /ozi?'^ee?i millions of acres of land, and it was proposed to purchase of them a part of it, for the accom- modation of their Eastern brethren, in proportion to their numbers, the Western Cherokees would be entitled to payment, for upwards of nine millions of acres! and the value placed upon it, should be made to correspond with the price paid for "the additional tract" sold by the United States to the Eastern Cherokees. by the same act under which it was conveyed. Is not this a fair and plain presentment of the facts of the case? The United States sold to the Eastern Cherokees eight hun- dred thousand acres of land, and conveyed to them at the same time, about nine millions of acres more, belonging to another party, without the consent of said party, or paying value therefor to the rightful owners. Thus have the Western Cherokees been dispossessed of two-thirds of their landed possessions, and the act has been committed by the Government of the United States, who claimed the ownership, after the Indians had obtained lawful possession, and disposed of them by the treaty of 1S35, as it would dispose of any of the public lands. Would any people or nation upon the face of the earth, provided for as the Western Cherokees, voluntarily and tamely surrender possession of their lands, without receiving an equivalent? Or, would any nation of people governed by rules of law and equity, forcibly take such possession of the property of another, or obtain it without hinder- ance, because there existed no power of resistance? Not one single benefit has been conferred upon the Western Cherokees by the New Echota treaty, except the addition to the general school fund, provided for by the 10th article. The various shops and mechanics, now so beneficially employed for the nation, were provided for by the treaty of 1833; and no addition is made to these provisions by the treaty of 1835, The only party intended to be benefited by that treaty, according to the stipulations of the I5th article, was the Cherokees then residing east, and those who had enrolled for emigration since June, 1833. On the other hand, not only the title to the lands has been taken away or changed, btit other rights and privileges of the Western Cherokees are curtailed, and all their interests injuriously affected by its provisions. Now, we seriously ask, ''How did the United States regain possession of the lands conveyed to the Western Cherokees, by the treaty of 1828? Or where did the Government obtain the power to exercise possessory control over it after the treaty of 1833?" That treaty had been approved by the President, and ratified by the Senate of the United States ; and was in December, 1835, binding and obligatory upon both the contracting parties. It had never been annulled or repealed by any act to which the Western Cherokees were a party ; and they never granted, or ac- quiesced in the control assumed by the United States in 1835; but always have, and do now deny the existence of the power there exercised. Let us examine further the treaty of 1835. By the 1st article, as has already been shown, the Eastern Cherokees cede to the United States all their lands and pos- sessions east of the Mississippi, for and in consideration of the sum of $5,000,000, which is to include all their claims for spoliations of every kind. But as doubts had arisen about the intention of the Government in making this stipulation, the question was again '' submitted to the Senate for their consideration and decision." Now, let us turn to the supplementary articles of this treaty, agreed upon on the 1st day of March, 1836, and we find that ihe Jive mill mis of dollars was fixed as the value of the Cherokee lands east of the Mississippi! And that the sum of $600,000 was provided to pay the expenses of their removal west, and to liquidate all their claims of every description against the United States, not otherwise expressly provided for. This sum of five millions of dollars, therefore, cannot be touched for an expenditure under the treaty, except $650,000 required by the 10th article, and $500,000 stipu- lated for in the 2d article, as the consideration to be paid to the United States for the cession of the additional tract of land. Every other claim is embraced within the provisions of the 3d supplementary article, and cannot be taken from the Jive millions to be paid as the value of the lands relinquished by the Cherokees. The balance of this money, therefore, amounting to four millions and fifty thousand dollars, was due to the Cherokees upon the ratification of the treaty, and should have been equally divided among them, as provided for in the 15th article, which denominates the reci- pients as " the people belonging to the Cherokee nation east, and such Cherokees as have removed west since June, 1833!" This money, which is called per capita or head-right money, has been long and anxiously looked for by the Cherokee people, and, although the Western Cherokees are debarred from all benefit by the terms of the treaty, yet they sympathize with their eastern brethren, and ask the question, what has become of this money? The balance of upwards of four millions, as we have shown, has not been expended for any legitimate purpose ; and it is doubtless in some safe depository, intended to be applied in effecting some great national mea- sure. The first foothold was obtained in this country by the Eastern Cherokees, under the promise that their Western brethren should receive a proportionate share of this fund, and participate in all the benefits of the treaty of 1835. And the same deception practised upon the credulous of our people, procured the execution of an ijistrument in writing, styled, " An act of union between the Eastern and Western Cherokees;' dated July 12, 1839. The undersigned, a remnant of the old Cherokee settlers, who left the home of their fathers, east of the Mississippi, a quarter of a century ago, do now for them- selves, and on behalf of the Western Cherokees, most solemnly protest against that act of union, as being taken as their act and deed, or that under its provisions they can be divested of any rights guarantied to them by former treaties. They do like- wise most solemnly protest against the occupancy of their lands under the treaty of 1835; and recognize no treaty stipulation conveying title to the lands they now oc- cupy and claim as their country, except those concluded in 1828 and 1833. And lastly, they do solemnly protest against the exercise of any right or jurisdiction over their country by a delegation of Cherokees who have recently gone to Washington city, purportmg to be a delegation representing the Cherokee nation. The undersif^ned, who have been appointed a committee at a convention of Wes- tern Cherokees now in session, present this humble memorial to you as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, with the fervent prayer that you will maturely con- sider their case, and procure justice to be done to the Cherokee nation. A delegation of the old men of the nation, formerly chiefs and principal counci- Jors, who signed the treaties of J 8 17, 1828, and 1833, have been this day appointed to visit the seat of Governnf>ent, clothed with full powers to settle and adjust all the afTairs of their nation. When they meet you, they will submit distinct and plain propositions for your fonsideration ; and as their claim is founded upon sound principles of law, justice, and humanity, they hope, under the protection of a kind Providence, for the happiest results. With sentiments of respect and esteem, we are vour friends, JOHN ROGERS, Who signed Ike treaty of 1828 and 1833, as President of National Committee. THOS. WILSON, S. C, and signer of treaty of 1817. GLASS, his X mark, Who signed treaty of 1833 as President of Council. his JAMES CAREY, x or CHICKEN COCK, mark, his JOHN X SMITH, signer of treaty 1817. mark. his CAPTAIN X DUTCH, and mark. THOS. L. ROGERS. Committee on behalf of Western Cherokees Witnesses present at signing- : Wm. D. Shaw, Thos. L. Hooers, District Judge Cherokee natio7i. Peter Harper. l^ 54 m 4^ -.« -^^0^ 5-' '<' '.:^ V % <» • * iD BOOKBINDINC ■ -antvillt. pj ^0^ Marcf Apoi igj. .^•^ ♦•