E 
 99 
 
 C5S76 
 
 SPRAGUE 
 
 SPEECH OF MR. SPRAGUEI 
 OF MAIN 
 
 ?' f
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 SPEECH 
 
 I 
 
 MR. SPRAGUE, 
 
 OF MAINE: 
 
 l>£Liy£RED IS 
 
 TSE SENATS OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 16th APRIL, 1830, 
 IN REPLY TO Messrs. WHITE, McKINLEY, AND FORSYTH, 
 
 WPON THE SUBJECT OE 
 
 THE REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 
 
 WASHINGTON .* 
 
 PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICK OE THE NATIONAL JOVBNAL, 
 
 PETER FORCE, PRINT. 
 1830.
 
 I
 
 SPEECH OF MR. SPRAGUE, OF MAINE. 
 
 IJN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 April 16, 1830. 
 
 The following amendment, to the bill for the removal of 
 the Indians, being under consideration : 
 
 " Provided always. That until the said tribes or nations shall choose 
 to remove, as by this act is contemplated, they shall be protected in their 
 present possessions, and in the enjoyment of all Iheir rights of territory 
 and government, as heretofore exercised and enjoyed, from all interrup- 
 tions and encroachments." 
 
 Mr. SPRAGUE addressed the Senate, as follows: 
 
 Mr. President : 
 
 The gentleman, who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Forsyth,) has 
 indulged in a wide range of remark in defence of his State against im- 
 putations which he supposed to have been elsewhere cast upon her. 
 This course may have been very proper in him ; I fully appreciate the 
 motive which induced it. Bull have no occasion to follow him; I have 
 no wish to derogate in the least from the character of Georgia, but ra- 
 ther that it should be as elevated as her most devoted sons can desire. I 
 shall speak of her so far only as may seem necessary to the free discus- 
 sion of the subject before us. 
 
 This bill and amendment, and the discussion, which they have produc^ 
 ed, involve the question of the rights and duties of the United States 
 with respect to the Indian tribes generally, but more especially the 
 Cherokees. With that people we have not less than fifteen treaties. The 
 Jirstmade in the year 1785, and the last in 1819. 
 
 By several of these treaties, we have unequivocally guarantied to 
 them that they shall forever enjoy — 
 
 1st. Their separate existence, as a political community ; 
 
 2d. Undisturbed possession and full enjoyment of their lands, within 
 certain boundaries, which are duly defined and fully described ; 
 
 3d. The protection of the United States, against all interference with, 
 or encroachments upon their rights by any people, stale, or nation. 
 
 For these promises, on our part, we received ample consideration — 
 
 By the restoration and establishing of peace ; 
 
 By large cessions of territory ; 
 
 By the promise on their part to treat with no other state or nation , 
 and other important stipulations. 
 
 These treaties were made with all the forms and solemnities which 
 could give them force and efficacy ; by Commissioners, duly appointed 
 with full power ; ratified by the Senate ; confirmed by the President , 
 and announced to the world, by his proclamation, as the binding compact 
 of the nation, and the supreme law of the land. 
 
 1848817
 
 The Cherokees now come to us, and say that their rights are in 
 danger of invasion, from the States of Georgia and Alabama ; and they 
 ask if we will extend to them the protection we have promised, and per- 
 form the engagements we have made. This is the question which they 
 distinctly propound, and which we must unequivocally answer; and we 
 are now discussing what our response shall be. 
 
 There is a broad line of distinction between the claims of Georgia 
 and those of Alabama and Mississippi, which seems heretofore to have 
 been unobserved, but which I shall endeavour to keep in view. 
 
 Let us first inquire what our duties are with respect to Georgia ; 
 for if her pretensions are unfounded, those of Alabama and Missis- 
 sippi fall of course. 
 
 It is not necessary to determine whether the Indians have just grounds 
 for their apprehensions or not, because the question is, whether if the 
 rights secured to them by our treaties, should, at some future day, be in- 
 vaded we will perform our engagements ? 
 
 But have they not some cause for their present alarm ? In Decem- 
 ber, 1827, a Committee of the Legislature of Georgia, made a report 
 accompanied by sundry resolutions which were accepted by both 
 branches, and the resolutions also received the approval of the Go- 
 vernor. In the report we find the following language, respecting the 
 territory of the Cherokees: "The lands in question belong to Geor- 
 gia — she must snd she will have them." And in the resolutions, the 
 following : 
 
 Resolved, ** That all the lands appropriated and unappropriated, 
 " which lie within the conventional limits of Georgia, belong to her abso- 
 "lutely ; that the title is in her; that the Indians are tenants at her will • 
 " that she may at any time, she pleases, determine that tenancy by taking 
 •* possession of the premises, and Georgia has the right to extend her 
 " own authority and laws over the whole territory." 
 
 " Resolved, That Georgia entertains for the General Government, so 
 " high a regard, and is so solicitous to do no act that can disturb or tend 
 " to disturb the public tranquillity, that she will not attempt to enforce 
 "her rights by violence — until all other means of redress fail." 
 
 "Resolved, That to avoid a catastrophe which none would more sin- 
 *• cerely deplore than ourselves, we make this solemn appeal to the 
 "United States," &c. 
 
 It is thus asserted as the right and avowed as the determination of 
 Georgia, to exercise absolute power over the Cherokees, and to take 
 their land at all hazards — even by violence, if other means should fail. 
 
 The gentleman from that State, (Mr. Forsyth,) observed, in the com- 
 mencement of his speech, that he felt himself bound in conscience to re- 
 lieve his friend from New Jersey, from all apprehensions of a violation 
 of the faith of the nation ; by demonstrating that the claims of Geor- 
 gia were supported by treaties. And he proceeded to do so in langauge 
 so strong, and tones so triumphant, as to make an evident impressioa 
 upon members of the Senate. Let us deliberately examine his argu- 
 ment. 
 
 The first treaty referred to, was that of Galphinton, in 1785, by 
 which certain concessions were made to Georgia. But that was by the 
 Creeks, and by them only, and had no relation to the Cherokees,—
 
 (Mr. Forsyth explained, he had remarked upon that treaty in answer 
 to the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Frelinghuysen,) and not as 
 bearing upon the rights of the Cherokees ) Mr. Spuague resumed ; 
 he was glad to receive the gentleman's explanation ; it precladed the 
 necessity of any further remark upon that topic. 
 
 The treaty next cited was that of Dewitt's corner, A. D. 1777, be- 
 tween South Carolina, Georgia and the Cherokees, by which the lat- 
 ter acknowledge that a portion of their country extending as far as the 
 Unacaye mountain, had been conquered, and they made a cessien of 
 the same by defined boundaries, to South Carolina, and to her only. 
 The conquered and ceded territory lies wholly within that State ; and 
 it is not now, and has not been for at least one generation, either claimed 
 or occupied by the Indians. What right can that confer on Georgia to 
 lands now own*id and possessed by the Cherokees ? 
 
 The next position was that the right of his State was derived under 
 the 9th article of the treaty of Hopewell ; made between the United 
 States and the Cherokees, in November, 1785 ; by which they gave to 
 the United States, the right of managing all their affairs. To this Geor- 
 gia was no party. But the gentleman contends that the United States 
 transferred M their power and claims, under the treaty, to that State, by 
 virtue of the compact of 1802 ; and that we now cannot interfere with 
 her pretensions. The clause in the compact, which is relied upon, is 
 this — the United States " cede whatever claim, right or title, (hey may 
 have to the jurisdiction or soil of any lands lying" within the limits of 
 Georgia. 
 
 Does this relinquishment of the right of the United States, to the soil 
 and jurisdiction of the lands, purport to transfer a pre-existing treaty 
 with the Indians ? Was it so intended ? 
 
 And if it had been, is the power which the treaty confers to legislate 
 for their benefit, in its nature transferable ? The Article is in these 
 words, '• For the benefit and comfort of the Indians, and for the preven- 
 " tion of injuries and oppressions on the part of the citizens or lndians,the 
 " United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive 
 " right of regulating the trade with the Indians, and managing all their 
 "affairs in such manner as they think proper." The power given is 
 strictly personal and fiduciary ; to be exercised according to our judg- 
 ment upon future events, and for their benefit. Can even a guardian 
 transfer his rights and duties at pleasure ? By the constitution — the 
 fundamental compact — Georgia has given to the United States the right 
 to legislate in certain cases over her citizens for their benefit, for ex- 
 ample, to organize, arm, discipline and call forth her militia. Can the 
 United States transfer this right to South Carolina, or any other So- 
 vereign ? 
 
 The express words of the article require this right to be exercised by 
 the United States " inCongress assembled.'''' Can we without the consent 
 of the other party, strike out these words and insert — the Legislature 
 of Georgia ? 
 
 Again — in order to see that this power is properly exercised, the 
 13th Article secures to the Cherokees, " the right to send a deputy of 
 "their choice, whenever they think fit to Congress.'^ Shall he come 
 here, to watch over the legislation at Milledgeville ■?
 
 6 
 
 But, if this power was in its nature transferable, it must be so subject 
 to the restrictions and lioiitatioQS in the treaty contained. Among which 
 are the following : — 
 
 1st. That the Cherokees shall continue to exist as a distinct political 
 community, under the protection of the United States. 
 
 2d That they shall enjoy the undisturbed possession of their lands: 
 
 3d. That the power to manage " their affairs^'' shall be exercised 
 " for the benefit and comfort of the Indians ; and for the prevention of 
 "injuries and oppressions." 
 
 Did this give to the United States, the right to drive them from all 
 their lands ? — Or to destroy the Cherokee nation, to strike it out of exis- 
 tence; and instead of managing for their " benefit," to annihilate " their 
 affairs," as a body politic ? Or could we convey a greater right than 
 we ourselves possessed ? 
 
 But this is not all. The Gentleman passed over in utter silence, a 
 most important event which intervened between the treaty of Hopewell 
 and the compact of 1802. It is the treaty of Holsten made in 1791 ; by 
 which the United States again promised the Cherokees to protect them 
 in their rights as a nation ; and the 7th Article holds the following lan- 
 guage : " The United States solemnly guarantee to the Chero- 
 kee NATION, ALL THEIR LANDS NOT HEREBY CEDED." If any right WaS 
 
 transfered to Georgia, it would be such only as existed at the time, and 
 subject of course to the stipulations of that pre-existmg treaty. 
 
 There is still another view of this subject. Are we not bound to see 
 that our treaties are fulfilled ? The Indians say that their very exis- 
 tence was threatened, anJ inquire of us whether we will perform our 
 solemn promise of protection. What shall we answer ? That we have 
 conveyed that promise to another ! — that we have transferred our obli- 
 gation to Georgia ! — have given her a license to violate our treaties ! 
 May they not reply, that the very purpose for which they purchased 
 our guaranty, and the protection of the strong arm of our Government 
 was to secure them against the encroachments of their white neighbors 
 in thai State ? 
 
 The compact of 1802, which has been so much insisted upon, was 
 made between the United States and Georgia. The Cherokees were 
 net parties, nor even assented to it. Of course it could not impair their 
 rights, or confer upon others any claim against them. If I, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, should promise the gentleman that I would obtain your farm and 
 convey it to him — would that divest your title, or authorize either of us 
 to wrest it from you by force ? The compact itself expressly recogniz- 
 ed "the Indian title," and the United States were to extinguish it only 
 when it could be done " peaceably" and on " reasonable terms." 
 
 The gentleman having, as he supposed, fully sustained the treaty 
 claims of Georgia, by the arguments upon which I have remarked, tri- 
 umphantly exclaimed, " I will have my bond, I will have my pound of 
 Jlesh." — A most unfortunate allusion. Sir; and one which I should not 
 have been unkind enough to make. He will have his pound of quiver- 
 ing flesh taken from nearest the heart of the living man ! But he will take 
 it without one drop of blood.— 
 
 "Ay — there's the rub" 
 
 For, in the cutting of that pound of flesh 
 
 What huoaaa blood shall flow — " must give us pause«^'
 
 The fiend- like Shy lock himself could not take the penalty of bis 
 bond, because " no jot of blood" was given. And none is given here, 
 but the express contrary — " peaceably" — "peaceably'" — and "upon rea- 
 sonable tern)s" too, is the emphatic language. But against whom, does 
 the gentleman make his claim — the Indians ? Does he hold their bond ? 
 No — they hold ours — they now present it to us and demand its perform- 
 ance — and, "till he can rail the seal from off that bond," he cannot ab- 
 solve us from its obligations. He declares that he will have the terms 
 of his compact fulfilled to "the twentieth part of one poor scruple," 
 and to the division of a hair. So be it ; and let the Indians too have 
 their guarantied rights maintained with equal scrupulosity. 
 
 The Hon. Chairman of the Committtee on Indian Affairs (Mr.White,) 
 conceded that the United States had repeatedly pledged their faith to the 
 Cherokees to interfere for their protection, but contended that we 
 ought not to perform these stipulations of our treaties because of the 
 conflicting claims of Georgia. He laid down this proposition, that if the 
 United States had come into engagements inconsistent with each other, 
 so that it was impossible to keep both, that that which was prior, in 
 point of time, should be specifically performed, and ample compensation 
 be made for the breach of the other. 
 
 To this position 1 freely assent; and upon this basis will rest the argu- 
 ment. 
 
 It is incumbent then upon the Hon. Chairman to show in the first 
 place, that our obligations to Georgia are incompatible with our treaties; 
 and, in the next place that they are of prior date. This, he and two 
 gentlemen who followed him in the debate (Messrs. M'Kinley and For- 
 syth) have atten^ted to do. Their argument is, that before the Revo- 
 lution, Great Britain had jurisdiction over the aborigines and the sole 
 right of treating with them, and that this power was wrested from her 
 by conquest during the war, and forever abandoned by the treaty of 
 peace in 1783. 
 
 I would first observe that, if it was obtained by conquest it belonged 
 to the conquerors. And who were the conquerors ? The United States; 
 who were also a party to the treaty of peace. Upon this ground it was, 
 that New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and other States so strongly 
 insisted that the Crown lands, which had been acquired by the common 
 arm and at the common expense, belonged of right to the common fund. 
 Their demand to a great extent succeeded. The several States yielded 
 to their pretensions by successive cessions ; Virginia magnanimously tak- 
 ing the lead. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I shall not dwell upon this ; for I mean, as far as 
 possible, to avoid all debateable ground. 
 
 Concede then, for the present, that when Georgia became indepen- 
 dent, in 1776, she at once succeeded to all the preexisting rights of Great 
 Britain over the unmeasured forests within her chartered limits. What 
 was that right ? Gentlemen say it was the right of discovery. 
 
 Discovery, Sir, confers no claim or right against the natives— ^the 
 persons discovered — but only as between discoverers. It is said that 
 the rights derived from this source were established and defined in. 
 Europe, upon the first discovery of this country. True ; but it was 
 by the mutual understanding and agreement of the nations of that
 
 8 
 
 continent only, in order to regulate their conduct among themselves. 
 To prevent conflict and collision, it was tacitly agreed that the Sove- 
 reign, who should find a country, theretofore unknown, should have 
 the exclusive right to the henefits of the discovery, and should be 
 permitted without interference to conduct toward the aboriginal inhabi- 
 tants according to his conscience, and his ability. He had therefore, as 
 against discovering nations who had assented to the arrangement, a 
 conventional right (o wage war upon and conquer the natives and sub- 
 ject them to his sway. It is this right to which it is contended chat Geor- 
 gia succeeded upon the declaration of Independence. Let it be so 
 considered; and that in the war which she should wage to subjugate 
 thelndians, no other state or nation could rightfully interfere. But 
 the people attacked had a right to resist. They surely were under no 
 obligation to acquiesce in the proposed subjugation. Suppose then 
 that they should happen to be too strong tor their assailants ; that 
 they should roll back the tide of war — the hunters should be hunted — 
 that those who came to conquer, should be in danger of being conquer- 
 ed ; and, in such emergency, the people of Georgia should call upon 
 another State, Virginia for example, for protection, and defence- Geor- 
 gia would thus have waived her conventional right to exclude all others 
 from her limits, and Virginia would, at her request, become a party to 
 the war. Would not Virginia then have the right to make peace for the 
 security of her own citizens, and must she not be bound by its terms ? 
 Was France bound by her treaty of alliance with us during the revo- 
 lution ? Yet her interference was without the consent of Great Britain, 
 the discoverer. Are the United States now bound by their treaties with 
 the states of South America ? 
 
 But further, what if Georgia, in order to induce her neighbours to come 
 in for her defence, had expressly agreed, before-hand that Virginia 
 should have the sole power ot conducting the war, and concluding the 
 peace. Would not both States be bound by the treaty of peace thereupon 
 made by Virginia ? To proceed one step further, suppose that this ar- 
 rangement between the two States, instead of being occasional should be 
 established by a permanent compact ; and that, in order to obtain the 
 aid and protection of Virginia, at all times, against the attacks of the In- 
 dians, Georgia should agree that she never would herself provoke such 
 attacks by making war upon them, and that if it should arise, her more 
 powerful ally should have the entire management of the war, and the 
 exclusive right of agreeing upon the terms of peace and making the 
 treaty. — Would not such terms be obligatory ? 
 
 Now, Sir, such a compact was actually made by Georgia with Virginia 
 and eleven other States, by the Articles of Confederation. 
 
 By the third Article, the United States are bound to assist the several 
 States, " against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any 
 of them." And by the ninth Article, the United States have "the 
 sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, 
 except in the cases mentioned in the 6th article," and also of "entering 
 into treaties." 
 
 Here is the express grant. What answer can be given to it ? What 
 reason can be assigned, why each State should not be bound by the stip- 
 ulations of a treaty of peace ? Will it be said we could not have the' re-
 
 latioDS of war and peace with the Indian tribes ? Ask the relatives of 
 Brad'dock and Butler, of Wayne, Harmer, and St. Clair, if Indians can 
 wage war ' Consult the crimsoned pages of your history and they will 
 answer you. Nay to banish such a suggestion forever, that sanae 9th Ar- 
 ticle of Confederation expressly declares, that by war it means to in- 
 clude contests with Indians ; for, by reference, it incorporates into it 
 the 6th article, which is in these words : 
 
 "Art. 6. No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the 
 " United States, in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually in- 
 '' vaiied by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolu- 
 " tion formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the 
 " danger is so imminent, as not to adnrjt of a delay, till the United States, 
 " in Congress assembled, can be consulted." Here is also an une- 
 quivocal relinquishment by each State, of the right to make war upon 
 the natives. 
 
 During the revolution, war actually existed between the United States 
 and the Cherokees ; it continued to rage after the acknowledgment of 
 our independence by Great Britain. Georgia needed our aid, and re- 
 ceived it. The Indians were then powerful and terrific. The United 
 States were desirous of peace; they sought it, and it was established in 
 1785, by the treaty of Hopewell, which has been already referred to. 
 It secured to the Cherokees, their previous right to exist as a com- 
 munity, upon the territory in their previous possession. Such a treaty 
 would have been obligatory upon any State, if the Articles of Confed- 
 eration had never existed ; but by that compact a right was expressly 
 given by Georgia herself to make it, and the United States were in duty 
 bound to exercise that power. 
 
 And now I ask what prior incompatible obligations to Georgia absolve 
 us from its stipulations, or render it impossible to fulfil them ? 
 
 Such was the power, and such the practice of the Confederation up to 
 the time of the formation of our present constitution, in September, 1787, 
 No longer previous than the preceding month, we find a Committee of 
 Congress, in an able and elaborate report, declaring that the United 
 States cannot interfere in behalf of a State agamst a tribe of Indians, " but 
 •' on the principle that Congress shall have the sole direction of the war 
 '• and the settling of all the terms of peace with such Indian tribe." And 
 this language was addressed particulary to Georgia by name, and with re- 
 spect to the Indians within her limits. This was in August. 
 
 The Constitution was formed in the following September. The 6th 
 Article declares, that " treaties mode, or which shall be made under the 
 " authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land" — 
 " any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not- 
 " withstanding." This was an express confirmation of the treaty of 
 Hopewell ; which had been made in November, 1785, less than two 
 years before, and was then in full force. 
 
 The State of Georgia, with full knowledge that it had been so made, 
 and that it was considered by the United States, to be valid and obliga- 
 tory, voluntarily adopted the Constitution, thereby herself most solemnly 
 affirming and establishing that treaty ; and, whatever may have been 
 said before, never since that time, until recently, when the present con- 
 troversy arose, has she in any manner denied its validity, or objected to 
 its being carried into effect.
 
 10 
 
 tjuch is the argument in bupport of the treaty of Hopewell. 1 shall 
 leave it by adducing but one other proof of its validity, in the opinion 
 of General Washington, and the Congress of 1778, and their determi- 
 nation to enforce it with scrupulous fidelity. It is the proclamation of 
 Sept. 1, 1778, which declares it to be " the lirm determination of Con- 
 egress to protect the said Cherokees in their rights, according to the 
 ''■ the true intent and meaning of the said treatj;" and a resolution 
 was adopted to hold in readiness a sufficient number of troops to enforce 
 that declaration. 
 
 Under our present Constitution many treaties have been regularly 
 made with the Cherokees. The first was at Holsten in 1791. The 
 reasons which have been adduced in support of the power to make the 
 treaty of Hopewell are applicable to this with increased force. 
 
 The Constitution was formed because the Confederation was too weak 
 to answer the purposes of the Union. It substituted a Government in 
 place of a mere confederacy, conferring upon it additional powers, and 
 further limiting those of the individual States. By the articles of Con- 
 federation, the power of Congress to regulate the trade and manage 
 affairs with the Indians was subject to a proviso that " the legislative 
 "right of finy State within its own limits should not be infringed." 
 This restriction is the only ground upon which doubts could ever 
 have been suggested of the power of the Confederation to enter into 
 treaty stipulations : it gave no countenance however to such suggestions, 
 because it was a limitation upon another grant of power, distinct from 
 that of establishing peace and making treaties. But even this restric- 
 tion is omitted in the Constitution, and Congress are empowered to regu- 
 late commerce with the Indian tribes in unquahfied terms. 
 
 The Constitution vests in the United States the sole and exclusive 
 power of making war and conducting peace. It expressly provides 
 "that no State shall engage in war" or "enter into any treaty." 
 Here is an unequivocal relinquishment of the right of Georgia to make 
 war upon or treat with the Indians. And what is the right which it is 
 said devolved upon her as successor to the sovereignty of Great Britain? 
 The right of a discoverer; that is, a right, as against others, and without 
 their interposition, to attack, and by force subdue the natives ; to make 
 war for the purpose of conquest. But Georgia covenants, by our fun- 
 damental compact, not to engage in war for that or any other purpose ; 
 to attack no nation or political community. 
 
 The United States have the sole power of making peace ; this can be 
 done only by treaty. At Hopewell in 1785, we made a treaty of peace. 
 Open war had raged between the United States and the Cherokees up 
 to that time. They had been the allies of Great Britain, but never had 
 been ours, or in any manner contracted with us. Was not that treaty 
 rightfully made and obligatory ? 
 
 At Holsten, in 1791, we made a treaty of peace and friendship. — It is 
 30 denominated on the face of it. It was the tprmination of an actually 
 existing war; of this there is no doubt. The Chairman of the Commit- 
 tee of Indian affairs, in his written opinion of 1824, states the fact, that 
 war was raging. The gentleman from Georgia says that his State ap- 
 plied to the United States for aid and protection in that war. The re- 
 port of the Conamittee of Indian affairs now before us declares that the
 
 u 
 
 Cherokees waged war against the citizens of the United States. At 
 Holsten we then undeniably made a treaty of peace to terminate an ex- 
 isting war. The authority was express and exclusive. Are not the 
 United States bound — will they abide by it ? 
 
 The 1st article is — " There shall be perpetual peace and friendship 
 " between all the citizens of the United States of America, and all the 
 "individuals composing the whole Cherokee nation of Indians." 
 
 " Article 7th — The United States solemnly guaranty to the Cherokee nU' 
 lion, all their lands not hereby ceded.'''' 
 
 " Article 15lh — All animosities for past grievances shall henceforth 
 " cease, and the contracting parties will carry the foregoing treaty into 
 '■^full execution with all good faith and sincerity." 
 
 The question now is, shall we carry these articles into effect with 
 any good faith or sincerity ? 
 
 Will it be pretended that the United States might make peace, but 
 had no authority to insert such stipulations as those I have quoted. Sir, 
 the substance of these articles are of the essence of a treaty of peace. 
 In every contract each party recognises the separate existence of the 
 other ; and a treaty of peace — not a truce, not an armistice, not a tem^ 
 porary cessation of hostilities, but a treaty of peace, in its nature a per- 
 manent, enduring contract, must bind each party to respect the exis- 
 tence of the other, and never to assail or attempt its destruction — must 
 obligate each also to permit the other to continue that existence upon its 
 own territory without attack or violence. To attempt to expel them by- 
 force, or subjugate or destroy their separate being, is a violation of the 
 compact of peace, and a renewal of the war. In terminating hostilites 
 therefore, by their undoubted constitutional power, the United States, 
 not only rightfully, but of necessity, embraced such terms as these. Are 
 they not obligatory ? 1 am not contending, Mr. President, that the 
 United States can cede away a part of any State to a foreign nation, a3 
 France or Great Britain, for example. That question, I do not mean 
 to touch ; it is wholly unnecessary. I only say that they may agree 
 that the other party may continue to exist upon the lands which they 
 have always occupied ; may retain that which has ever been their own. 
 
 But this is not all. The Constitution proceeds still further and gives 
 to the United States the general right to make treaties, not merely of 
 peace, but all others. This power is not only clearly and positively 
 conferred on the Union, but expressly inhibited to its several members. 
 It has been repeatedly and continually exercised in relation to the In- 
 dian tribes within the United States, and that by the acquiescence and 
 assent of Georgia herself. 
 
 I know it is said Georgia protested ; and this has been repeated, 
 reiterated and insisted upon in every variety of form, as applicable to 
 both the treaties and all the questions which have been presented. 
 Let us examine : 
 
 The first alleged protest was in Feb. 1 78G, prior to the treaty of Hol- 
 sten. It is the report of a committee, accepted by the House of Repre- 
 sentatives only. The objections urged therein apply exclusively to the 
 treaty of Hopewell, and must have rested only on the ground of the reser- 
 vation, before mentioned, in one of the Arliclea of Confederation and 
 which was omitted in the Constitution
 
 12 
 
 The next protest was io Feb. 1797 — It makes no objection whatever 
 to the treaty of Holsten, and thereby impliedly approves and assents to 
 it. It protests against two treaties with tiie Creeks made at New York, 
 and Colerain, and the intercourse law of the United States. The 
 grounds of objection insisted on are, that the intercourse law places the 
 militaiy above the civil authority, and prohibits pursuit and retaliation 
 for Indian outrages. That the Creeks by the treaty of Galphinton in 
 1785, confirmed by a subsequent treaty at Shoulderbone, had submitted 
 themselves to Georgia and become members of the State, and ceded to 
 her a tract of land which had been actually organised into a county by the 
 name of Tallassee. And the State protests " because the treaty of 
 " New York in 1790, after the said cession being acted on eonstitu- 
 "tionally erected and laid out in a county, and the lands appropriated, 
 " did sever, cut, and lop off" the land so ceded before the power of the fed- 
 *' eral constitution existed, and ex post facto declared they were vest- 
 *' ed in, and belonging to, the Creek Nation of Indians ; and because 
 *' the said intercourse law and treaty of Coleraine have confirmed the 
 "same" 
 
 Their complaint is, substantially, that the United States had taken 
 from Georgia, lands which had " been duly ceded, fairly paid for, 
 " and legally and constitutionally laid out into a county." In con- 
 clusion, they " most fervently solicit a revision of the intercourse 
 «' law and the New York and Coleraine treaties, and requiring a con- 
 " firmation of the county of Tallassee to the State." And " they most 
 *' earnestly solicit the assistance of the United States to attain the cession 
 " of land the treaty of Coleraine they trust was intended to establish." 
 These protestations insist that the treaties of Galphinton and Shoulder- 
 bone were valid by reason of the before-named reservation in the Arti- 
 cles of Confederation ; but no where deny, and by implication admit, the 
 general right of the United States to make treaties with the Indian tribes, 
 and guaranty to them the possession of their lands. 
 
 They do not breathe a whisper of objection to the treaty of Holsten, 
 of 1791, or to any of the powers involved in making it, but acquiesce 
 therein. 
 
 In February, 1796, by an act of her Legislature, to which I shall 
 hereafter recur, she expressly declared that the United States had the 
 right to make treaties vf'ith the Indians ; a right which they have con- 
 tinually exercised and which she has never questioned, until this recent 
 controversy arose. Not less than fourteen treaties have been entered 
 into with this same Cherokee Nation since the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion : in 1791, 1792 and 1794, by General Washington ; in 1798, by Mr. 
 Adams ; one in 1804, two in 1805, one in 1806, and one m 1807, by 
 Mr. Jefferson ; three in 1816, by Mr Madison ; one in 1817, by Mr. 
 Monroe — General Jackson being the negotiator ; and in 1819, by the 
 same President — Mr. Calhoun being the negotiator. 
 
 By more than half these treaties, large cessions of land were obtained, 
 boundaries defined, and the remaining territory, and the protection of 
 the United States again and again guarantied to the Indians. 
 
 Shall Georgia now be permitted to deny their validity ? If a man see- 
 ing another in the act of making a deed of his land, to a third person, 
 shall stand by in silence, until the conveyance is completed, and the
 
 13 
 
 grantee has parted with his money, paid the consideration, would any 
 Chancellor, that ever sat in a Court of Equity, permit that man to re- 
 claim his property and thus consummate a fraud on the fair purchas^er ? 
 But suppose that he shall not only thus witness the conveyance per- 
 fected and the money paid, but himself receive the consideration ; can 
 he with the fruits of the contract in his pocket, lay his hand upon the 
 property, and wrest it from the innocent grantee ? Georgia not only 
 acquiesced but actually received all the lands ceded by the Indians, 
 and for which they obtained our promise of protection. I have in my 
 hand some of her laws disposing of the acquisitions. — 
 
 The title of one is : — " An act to dispose of and distribute the cession 
 " of land obtained from the Creek and Cherokee nations of Indians by 
 "the United States, in the several treaties of 10 August, 1814 ; 8 July, 
 ^' 181*7 ; and 22 January, 1818." 
 
 And of another, " An act to dispose of the territory lately acquired 
 " of the Cherokee Indians by a treaty held by the Honorable John C. 
 " Calhoun, at the City of Washington, on the 27th day of February, 
 '• 1819." There are others of similar tenor. 
 
 And now retaining these acquisitions, holding the proceeds of these 
 treaties in her hands, she declares that they are invalid ; thus at the 
 same moment binding the Indians by their stipulations and denying 
 them the benefit of ours. 
 
 She has not only thus declared the right of the United States, to make 
 treaties and assented to them when made, but has repeatedly urged that 
 they should be entered into for the purpose of obtaining further acqui- 
 sitions for her benefit; and even as late as the year, 1825, contended 
 that the treaty of the Indian Springs with the Creeks was obligatory, and 
 should be carried into effect. 
 
 And it was not until the Indians had firmly refused to assent to further 
 cessions, and it was perceived that no more lands could be acquired 
 by negotiation, that the doctrine arose which denies to the United States, 
 their right to make these compacts. 
 
 Mr. President : what have the Senate heard to obviate the force of 
 the facts and arguments, which I have adduced ? What answers have 
 been given ? I will advert to them all. 
 
 And first, as to the acts and acquiescence of Georgia, we have the reply 
 in the report of the Committee, that as she protested against the treaty of 
 Hopewell, made in 1785, " no inference can be drawn to her disadvan- 
 " tage, from her silence or from any thing she may have said in relation to 
 " any subsequent treaty, because in each of them a change was made, by 
 '' which a portion of her territory and jurisdiction was restored to her, 
 " and thus her condition rendered better," &c. Who does not perceive 
 that, under this form of words oi restoring — wtiat she never possessed ; 
 but which belonged to the Cherokees, before she had a being — the sub- 
 stantial, real cause of her assent is alleged to be the benefits which she re- 
 ceivedl Yes, Sir; she did receive the fruits of these solemn con- 
 tracts ; by the establishing of peace and additions to her territories, in 
 1791 ; by the cessions of 1798, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1816, 1817, 
 and 1819. And shall we be told that because it was for her interest to 
 be silent, because she was receiving the consideration of the compacts, 
 therefore she now, after 20 years assent, is under no obligation to abide 
 by them ?
 
 14 
 
 The Hod. Chairman, in his opening speech, assigned several rea* 
 sons wh)' the United States could not constitutionally form such trea- 
 ties. The first was that " the creature could not possess power to de- 
 stroy its creator." This expression is calculated to mislead the judg- 
 ment, because it refers the mind at once to the relation, in which we 
 frail and feeble mortals stand to our Omnipotent Maker ; and it would 
 seem to he just as true to say — the creature cannot diminish the power 
 of its creator. The gentleman applies it to the General Government, 
 as the work of the several States. Is it true that it cannot — that it 
 does not take any power from its several members ? The argument is, 
 that if the Union can secure to the Indians, any portion of their territory 
 by tipn'y, they may cede away a whole State. This would indeed, as 
 the gentleman must admit, be a gross and palpable abuse of the authority. 
 His reasoning then must be, that the United States cannot possess any 
 power which, by perversion, may be exerted to the destruc'ion of one 
 of Its members. Can they, then, make any treaty with a foreign nation ? If 
 so there is the same danger of wrongfully transferring a State. Can they 
 make war ? It would be the readiest means of lopping off a member by 
 leaving it defenceless. Can they organize, discipline, and call forth the 
 tnilitia. and control the whole physical fetrength ? Sir, these are powers 
 expressly inserted in the Constitution, and they are not to be argued 
 out of it, by apprehensions of extravagant possible abuses. 
 
 The General Government was formed by the States — and the crea- 
 ture, says the gentleman, cannot have power to destroy any one of 
 its creators. The State Governments, Sir, were formed by individuals. 
 If any of ihese should be guilty of a capital offence, might he not say 
 in the language of the Chairman, you cannot take my life — it is impos- 
 sible in the nature of things that the creature can have power to destroy 
 one of its creators 
 
 It is argued that the existence of an Indian community, within the char- 
 tered limits of a State, is inconsisieut with " a Republican form of Gov- 
 ernmeiU^'''' as guarantied, by the Constitution, to every State. 
 
 This argument has been much relied on. It was advanced by the Se- 
 cretary of War, repeated by the Committee, and reiterated in the speech 
 of the Chairman. If this be so, Mr. President, a most unexpected result 
 follows ; it is — that Georgia has never yet nad a republican form of Gov- 
 ernment — for there has never been a momenr, when such tribes did not 
 exist within her borders. At the time of the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion, this same Cherokee nation was much more numerous, and held 
 sway over a much wider region than at the present time. Nay the Con- 
 stitution itself confirms the pre-existing treaty of Hopewell, which re- 
 cognised and guarantied the separate existence of the tribe ; and which 
 is now contended to be incompatible with that fundamental compact. 
 Is the existence of a body politic, which the Legislature cannot destroy, 
 necessarily incompatible with a Republican form of Government ? 
 How is it with Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, or the char- 
 tered cities of other States ? 
 
 Another proposition derived from the same elevated source, and urged 
 with equal vehemence here, is that these treaties cannot be valid, be- 
 cause the Constitution declares that " no nen> State shall be formed or 
 "erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, without the consent 
 " of the Legislature" thereof.
 
 15 
 
 Sir, no one proposes to create a new State, but to continue an old tribe, 
 or State, if you so please to denominate it. It is to keep faith with a 
 poHlical communit)' more ancient than Georgia herself; it is to preserve^ 
 not to form anew. Here again, I would observe that this nation of 
 Cherokees was as much a State at the time of the adoption of the Con- 
 stitution as now, and had much greater power, and more extensive 
 dominion ; and that the treaty of Hopewell, which, this argument insists, 
 formed a netw State since the Constitution, and in violation thereof was 
 made two years before its adoption, and was confirmed and sanctioned 
 by it. 
 
 We are next told that the Constitution recognises the right of the re- 
 spective Stale Legislatures to pass their laws over, and annihilate these 
 communities, by that clause in the first article, which provides that an 
 enumeration of inhabitants as a basis of representation shall be made, 
 •' excluding Indians not taxed." 
 
 This provision undoubtedly implies that there could be individual In- 
 dians subject to taxation, and therefore to be counted ; it also expressly 
 declares that there might be those within a State, "not taxed." 
 
 There may have been, nay there were, in some of the States, indi- 
 vidual natives voluntarily residing within the white settlemt nts, separate 
 from any tribe, and freely subjecting themselves to the local laws. There 
 were those too whose nation, as a body, had disappeared ; and because 
 these persons had, ot their own accord, thus sought the State jurisdiction, 
 does it follow that it could be extended over Indian nations, who had 
 always resisted it, and with whom, at the moment this clause was writ- 
 ten, and the Constitution formed, the United States had a treaty guaranty- 
 ing them against such taxation, and every other exercise of State authority 
 over them ? By what imaginable process could these words, " Indians 
 not taxed," produce the magical effect of annulling the treaty of Hope- 
 well, then existing in full force ' 
 
 Let us substitute the word, aliens, for Indians. The clause would then 
 exclude " aliens not taxed." Will it be contended that foreigners ex- 
 isting as a nation, with whom we had treaties, as such, would be subject 
 to the laws of a State ? Would it not apply exclusively to the aliens, 
 who had separated themselves from their nation and mingled with our 
 citizens ? 
 
 As a last resort, and to me, Mr. President, it seems a desperate one, 
 it has been earnestly contended by the gentlemen from Tennessee, 
 Alabama, and Georgia, (Messrs. White, McKinley and Forsyth,) that we 
 cannot constitutionally make any treaty, with any Indian nation, within 
 the United States — that the express power to make " treaties" does not 
 embrace compacts or agreements with such communities. 
 
 Wherever, Sir, the relation of peace and war can exist, the United 
 States must of necessity, possess the right to make a treaty of peace. 
 That this relation may exist with these native tribes has never yet been 
 doubled, and will not at this day be questioned. No one will have the 
 assurance, in the lace of all history, in defiance of what is known by the 
 whole world, to declare that our contests with the aboriginal nations are 
 on their part insurrections, rebellions subjecting them to be tried and 
 executed as traitors The Secretary of War will not say so, for he told 
 the Cherokees, in April last, " your people were at enmity with the 
 *• United States, and waged a war upon our frontier settlements : a
 
 16 
 
 "durable peace was not entered into with you until 1791." The Com- 
 mittee and its Chairman (Mr. White) will not tell us so, for their re- 
 port, accompanying this bill, declares that the Cherokees waged " a war 
 "■ against the citizens ot' these States, prior to the treaty of Holsten, in 
 *' 1791" — Rebellion ! — by those who never owed allegiance, and with 
 whom, ever since our national existence, we have either had open war 
 or subsisting treaties ! 
 
 But independent of this power of peace and war, why does not the 
 general authority to make treaties, embrace those with the Indians ? 
 Gentlemen content themselves with a positive and earnest denial. 
 
 The word treaties, say they, in the Constitution does not mean com- 
 pacts or contracts with Indian tribes. Why not ? Did not those who 
 formed and adopted the Constitution so understand it ? To answer this 
 question we must ascertain how that word was used, and what were 
 the ideas attached to it, at the time and anterior to its insertion in that 
 instrument. This rule of construction is the foundation of all science. 
 When any term is used by an author it is understood to carry with it 
 the ideas which he has previously affixed to it ; that he denotes by it 
 what he always has done. Hence, in the science of law, when the 
 student has ascertained what a writer means by the words fee simple, or 
 larceny, if he subsequently finds those words used by the same author 
 he attaches to them the same meaning. 
 
 These contracts with aboriginal communities have been denominated 
 treaties from the first settlement of this country. It has been their pe- 
 culiar and appropriate name, without even an alias dictus. Great Bri- 
 tain made treaties with the Indians; the several colonies formed many, and 
 gave them the same appellation The Continental Congress from the 
 time it first assembled, until it was merged in the present national Go- 
 vernment, uniformly called them treaties. They did so in 1775, 1776, 
 1778, 1783, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1788, and even to the day of the 
 formation and adoption of the Constitution. We find them repeatedly 
 and particularly mentioned in July, August and October, 1787 ; the Con- 
 stitution being formed in September of the same )'ear. 
 
 Nor is this all. In the articles of Confederation, power was given 
 to make treaties. It had been repeatedly exercised in establishing our re- 
 lations with Indians tribes ; particularly the Delawares, the Six Nations, 
 the Cherokees, the Choctaws, the Chickasaws, and the Shawnees ; 
 and on the first of September, 1 778, was issued the proclamation of Con- 
 gress and of General Washington to enforce the treaty of Hopewell. 
 
 The word treaties, thus invariably known and used, and which had 
 received a practical construction under the Confederation, was inserted 
 by the same great men in the Constitution of the United States. Could 
 any one doubt its meaning ? Did Georgia misunderstand it ? She had 
 herself made treaties with all the forms of negotiation, through commis- 
 sioners fully empowered, in 1773, 1783 and 1785, they were so denom- 
 inated by her at the time and ever afterwards. On the 3d of August, 
 1787, a motion was made by Mr. Few, delegate in Congress, from Geor- 
 gia, seconded by Mr Blount from North Carolina, to take measures to 
 " explain and confirm all former treaties" with the Creek Indians. 
 
 There is as much evidence that this word was intended to embrace 
 conventions with such communities as the Creeks or Cherokees, as those 
 with transatlantic nations, such as France and Spain.
 
 Contemporary exposition has always been deemed oi great forc£ 
 m settling even the most difficult questions of constitutional law. Prac- 
 tice and precedent too have often been considered as decisive authority. 
 Mr. Madison, who has, with so much justice, been denominated the great 
 constitutional lavvyer of this country, declared in a message to Congress, 
 that the question of the constitutionality of the Bank of the United 
 States, had been so settled by the sanction of the different departments 
 of the Governnaent, that it was no longer to be agitated; and vet only one 
 b-ank had then been chartered If his argument had, in that instance, 
 any force, it is here irresistible. 
 
 From the organization of the Government, down to this very session 
 of Congress, the practice has been unbroken and invariable. We find 
 these treaties made in 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1797, 
 1798, and almost, if not quite, every year since. I have counted no 
 less than one hundred and twenty-four Indian treaties formed under the 
 present Constitution, being more than three for each year. If authority 
 and practice can settle any question, this is at an end. 
 
 In 1790, General Washington delivered a speech to the Seneka In- 
 dians, some extracts from which I will now read : 
 
 I, the President of the United States by my own mouth, and by a written speech 
 signed with my own hand and sealed with the seal of the United Stales, Speak to the 
 Seiieka nation. 
 
 The general Government only has the power to treat with the Indian nations, and 
 any treaty formed and held without its authority, will not be bindiug. 
 
 Here then is the security for the remainder of your lands. No state nfer person 
 can purchase your lands, unless at some public treaty held under the authority of 
 the United Slates. The General Government will never consent to your being de- 
 frauded ; but it will protect you in all your just rights. 
 
 Hear well, and let it be heard by every person in your nation, that the President 
 of the United States declares, that the General Government considers itself bound to 
 to protect you in all the lands secured to you by the treaty of Fort Stanwix, the 22d 
 of October, 1784, excepting such parts as you may since have fairly sold to persons 
 properly authorized to purchase of you. 
 
 Again — 
 
 But your "great object seems to be the security of your remaining lands, and I 
 have therefoie upon this point meant to be sufficiently strong and clear. 
 
 That in future you cannot be defrauded of your lands. Tl^at you possess Ihe right 
 to sell, and the right of refusing to sell your lands. 
 
 That therefore the sale of your lands in future will depend entirely upon youf' 
 selves. 
 
 But that when you may find it for youi interest, to sell any parts of your lands, 
 {he United States musi ba present by their Jigent, and will be your secwri/j/, that 
 you shall not be defrauded in the bargain you shall make. 
 
 You now know that all the lands secured to you by the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 
 excepting such parts as you may since have fairly sold, are yours, and that only 
 your own acts can convey them away. Speak therefore your wishes on the subject 
 of tilling the ground. The United States will be happy to afford you eveiy assist- 
 ance in the only business which will add to your numbers and happiness. 
 
 The United States will be true and faithful to their engagements. 
 Given at Philadelphia, 29th December, 1790, 
 
 GEORGE WASHINGTON- 
 
 By the President: 
 
 Thomas Jefferson. 
 By command of the President of) 
 the United States of America — S 
 
 H. Knox, Secretary for tht Department of War, 
 3
 
 18 
 
 " The United States will be true and faithful to their engagements.^" 
 Such was the solemn declaration of the Father of his Country in the in- 
 fancy of this Republic. Heaven grant that his sacred promises may be 
 kept and his confident prediction veritied. The question is now before 
 us. No sophistry can evade, no ingenuity can elude it. Will " the 
 " United States be true and faithful to their engagements," or false and 
 treacherous ? 
 
 The Cherokees present this solemn interrogatory, and we must re- 
 turn a deliberate response. It seems almost, as if their case had been 
 formed for the purpose of determining whether it be possible to bind 
 this nation by its plighted faith. 
 
 I have already referred to our repeated and reiterated engagements 
 by the sages of the Revolution, m the Congress of 1785 ; by VVashing- 
 ton and the constellation of brilliant names around him, in 1791, 1792, 
 and 1794 ; by the elder Adams and his Cabinet in 1798 ; by Mr. Jeffer- 
 son, in four successive treaties, in 1804, 1805, 1806, and 1807 ; by Mr. 
 Madison, in several formed in 1816 ; by Mr. Monroe, in 1817, General 
 Jackson himself subscribing it with his own hand as commissioner; and by 
 another in 1819, to which Mr. Calhoun affixed his name, as negotiator. 
 All these treaties were ratified by the Senate, and sanctioned by every de- 
 partment of the Government. 
 
 In 1794, that greatest and best of men, whose name we profess so 
 much to venerate, and which should be, of all others, the highest au- 
 thority to this Senate and to the nation, delivered a speech to the Chiefs 
 and Warriors of the CnEnoKEE nation, in which speaking of the lands 
 upon Cumberland, he says: " These have been confirmed by two trea- 
 " ties of Hopewell, in 178S, and Holsten in 1791 " Again — " The trea- 
 " ties which have been made cannot be altered. The boundaries 
 *' which have been mentioned must be marked and established, so 
 " that no dispute shall happen or amj m-kite people cross over it.^' 
 
 In 1795, the Governor of Tennessee upon which State it is now as- 
 serted these treaties are not obligatory, wrote a letter to President Wash- 
 ington, in order to " prevent infractions of them," by encroachments 
 upon the lands of the Indians. And as late as 1824, the Gentleman from 
 Tennessee, who reported this bill, (Mr. White) gave an able and elab- 
 orate opinion in writing, in which he strenuously asserts and maintains 
 their validity and the rights of the Indians. He says "the Cherokee? 
 " are to be considered as a nation, a community having a country dis- 
 " tinctly marked out, and set apart for their use ; that their interest is 
 " as permanent and fixed in it, as the pledge and the faith of the United 
 *' States can make it ; inasmuch as they have solemnly guarantied it to 
 ♦' them as a nation, without any limitation of time.'' With reference 
 to the treaty of Holsten, he says they are " to be vievved as a nation pos- 
 '* sessingall the powers of other independent nations, which are not ex- 
 " pressly or by necessary implication, surrendered up by that treaty." 
 And again, " they have not surrendered the power of making munici- 
 pal regulations for their own internal government." 
 
 But now that we, the United States, are called upon to "be true and 
 faithful to these engagements," it is contended that they are not obliga- 
 tory ; and, in order to sustain that position, it is insisted that the Consti- 
 tution gives no power to make treaties with Indian nations, within the
 
 19 
 
 Unitetl States. Although, every President of the United States and 
 the members ot' his Cabinet, every Administration and all the great, 
 men by whom it was surrounded and sustained, have formed and esta- 
 blished such Indian treaties. 
 
 Every Senate of the United States, and I believe, every member of 
 every Senate have ratified and confirmed such Indian treaties. Every 
 House of Representatives of the United States, and I believe, every 
 member thereof, have affirmed and sanctioned them, by passing laws for 
 their due execution, paying from year to year the annuities secured by 
 them, and making appropriations to enable the President to hold others. 
 At this very session, the Senate has ratified new treaties; and during the 
 present month, we have made an appropriation to enable the President 
 lo form another, with the tribes in Indiana. While that bill was un- 
 der discussion an amendment was proposed, prohibiting the use of any 
 part of the money therein granted, in secret presents to the Chiefs; and 
 it was insisted by the gentlemen from Tennessee, Louisiana, and Illinois, 
 (Messrs. Grundy, Livingston, and Kane) that such a proviso, merely re- 
 stricting the use of money which Congress was granting, vvould trench 
 upon the high, independent, constitutional power of the President in ne- 
 gotiating treaties. Nay, the second section of the bill now under con- 
 sideration, provides for the removal of " any tribe or nation of Indiana, 
 now residing within the limits of any of the States or territories, and 
 with which the United States have existing treaties," — and now we are 
 told, by the chairman, that such treaties cannot exist — that they are no 
 treaties. 
 
 It is in effect asserted, that every President and every Senate, have 
 been guilty of usurpation, in extending the treaty-making power be- 
 yond its legitimate objects. For if these contracts are not treaties, 
 within the true meaning of the constitution, they could be made only by 
 the authority of Congress. But the President and Senate alone — the 
 treaty-making power — have always negotiated them, ratified them, and 
 by proclamation announced them to the nation, as the supreme law of 
 the land. Every Stale legislature, and the whole people, have heard 
 these annunciations, and looked on, during all these proceedings, in si- 
 lent acquiescence. 
 
 Even in 1798, when all the acts of the General Government, and par- 
 ticularly those of the executive, were scrutinized with the utmost rigour, 
 it was never suggested even in Virginia, where the discussions were most 
 animated, that there had, in this respect, been any irregularity. But now, 
 upon the pressure of an exigency, it ig discovered for the first time, 
 that all has been wrong. The present occasion has brought with it 
 new and peculiar lights, by which gentlemen now perceive what vvas 
 in the minds and intentions of the framers of the Constitution, better 
 than they did themselves. They were ignorant of their own work. — 
 The venerated fathers of the Republic, and all the high and honoured 
 names, who have presided over its destinies, have been involved in 
 deep darkness, and wandered in gross error ! 
 
 I have thus, Mr. President, endeavoured to present my views with res- 
 pect to the claims of the State of Georgia. Whether we regard original 
 principles of international law, as applicable to the right of discovery — 
 or the express powers conferred by the articles of Confederation— or
 
 20 
 
 iiie confirmation of pre-existing treaties, by the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion — or the authority vested by that instrument in the General Govern- 
 ment ; and the renunciation of powers by respective States — the invaria- 
 ble practice and usage of the Union, and the acts, acquiescence, and as- 
 sent of Georgia herself — it is manifest that we are bound to perform our 
 engagements to the Indians, and are under no incompatible and para- 
 mount obligations to that State. 
 
 But let us now, for the sake of the argument, make the violent supposi- 
 tion, that the pretensions of Georgia are well founded, and that the United 
 States cannot rightfully fulfil their stipulations as against her. In that 
 case the States of Alabama and Mississippi, would stand on very differ- 
 ent ground. Their claims have been mingled and blended with those 
 of the elder sister, as if they were precisely the same, and hers have 
 been put forward as the only subjects ef discussion, when in truth there 
 is a broad line of distinction, which ought to be marked and remembered. 
 For the sake of distinctness and brevity, I shall speak of Alabama alone. 
 
 It is conceded on all hands, as a fundamental proposition, that the Uni- 
 ted States are bound to fulfil their engagements to the Cherokees specifi- 
 cally, except when prevented by incompatible obligations, prior in 
 point of time. 
 
 Now, Sir, the State of Alabama did not exist until the year 1819; 
 when she voluntarily came into the Union after the fifteen treaties with 
 this nation, had been previously established and proclaimed as the 
 supreme law of the land. 
 
 But it is said that Alabama was formed from territory once belonging 
 to Georgia, and succeeded to all her rights. Without stopping to examine 
 the difficulties attending such a supposed transmission of a right to re- 
 sist treaties ; it is sufficient to say that by the compact of 1802, Geor- 
 gia ceded to the United States all her " right, title, and claim" " to 
 the jurisdiction and soil" of all the territory now constituting Alabama 
 and Mississippi. The whole right of Georgia, whatever it was, thus be- 
 came vested in the General Government, and so remained until 1819 ; 
 during which time not less than eight of these treaties were made. 
 Who could then contest their validity ? Are our treaties valid with 
 the nations in Florida, Arkansas and Michigan ? Can we enter into 
 engagements with any tribes within the boundaries of the United States, 
 —even beyond the Rocky Mountains, or any where upon this conti- 
 nent ? Can we make the solemn guarantee proposed by this bill ? — if 
 so, we are legally constrained by our promises to the Indians of Alabama 
 made before the existence of that State. 
 
 Bui this is not all. Still another insuperable difficulty presents itseif 
 to her claims to legislate over and destroy the Indian nations. 
 
 The following Article is a part of the fundamental law to which Alaba- 
 ma owes her being, and without which she cannot exist : " The utmost 
 " good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians ; their lands 
 *' and property shall never be taken from them without their consent: 
 " and in their property^ rights, and liberty, they never shall be invaded 
 " or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress ; 
 " but laws founded in justice and humanity shall, from time to time 
 " be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving 
 ^^ peace and friendship with them.'' This was originally a part of the 4th
 
 21 
 
 Article of th'e Ordinance respecting the North Western Territory, and 
 was by express reference incorporated into the 1st article of the com- 
 pact of 1802. and made a fundamental and perpetual coTidition in the 
 Act of Congress which provided for the admission of Alabama. 
 
 What is the answer to all this ? We have it from the gentleman from 
 Alabama (Mr. M'Kinley.) The compact of 1802, says he, was uncon- 
 stitutional } Georgia could not transfer to the United States either soil 
 or jurisdiction. 
 
 If this be so, the first consequence is, that the dispute between that 
 State and the General Government, respecting the bwnership of the 
 crown lands obtained by conquest, which that compact was supposed 
 to have happily put to rest forever, by mutual and reciprocal cessions — 
 could never be settled ! 
 
 In the next place — that the combined powers of the State and of the 
 Union, cannot do that, under the constitution, which the members indi- 
 vidually, might have done without the constitution. It is an attribute of 
 complete sovereignty to be able to convey and receive territory. It is 
 insisted that this attribute, as between the States, is annihilated — al- 
 though all powers not granted are reserved to the members. I vvill not 
 say that such an effect could not be produced by the Constitution, but it 
 is at least so extremely improbable, that those who contend for it, in any 
 particular instance, should be required to show it clearly, which has 
 not been done. 
 
 It is msisted by the gentleman that no State can be subject to the re- 
 straining condition of the Ordinance referred to, because it is inconsist- 
 ent with her constitutional equality with the other members of the 
 Union. 
 
 That Ordinance was established in July, 1787. It declares that, 
 "The following articles shall be considered as articles of compact, be- 
 "■ tween the original States, and the people and states of said territory, and 
 *' forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent." Then suc- 
 ceeds an article embracing the clause before read and which was incor- 
 porated into the compact of 1802. The Ordinance subsequently declares 
 that, "The said Territory, and the States, which may be formed therein 
 '• shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy." 
 
 This Ordinance and all its provisions was affirmed and established by 
 the adoption of the Constitution, and thus that instrument itself contem- 
 plated that all the Slates, to be thereafter formed North West of the Ohio, 
 should be forever subject to those conditions; by which it is now contend- 
 ed, no one could ever be constitutionally restrained ! 
 
 It is insisted by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. M'Kinley) that 
 Georgia could aot transfer soil and jurisdiction to the United Stales; that 
 the compact of 1802, attempting to do so was unconstitutional and void; 
 and that the tract of country, which it was intended to convey, remained 
 a part of that State until the year 1819. 
 
 If the Gentleman's doctrine is corrject, it remains so still ; she having 
 never conveyed it. 
 
 Another consequence, Mr. President, would flow from this doctrine, 
 which I should exceedingly deplore; it is, Sir, that .3/a6ama is not a mem- 
 ber of this Union! By the Constitution no new State can be formed or ad- 
 iqitted into the Union within the limits of an old one, without the consent
 
 22 
 
 of the latter. Now, Sir, Georgia has never consentetl to the admission 
 of Alabama, except by the transfer of soil and jurisdiction by virtue of 
 the compact of 1802. If that conveyance was inoperative no consent 
 has been given. If that compact was absolutely void, as the gentleman 
 contends, it is a legal nullity, and he can hold no rights under it. 
 
 Congress, too, have never given their consent, except upon the basis 
 of the binding efficacy of that compact, and upon the express condition 
 that its requisitions should be the fundamental law of the new Slate. 
 But, says the gentleman. Congress had no power to pass such a law. If 
 so, the Act respecting the admission of Alabama was unconstitutional and 
 void, and neither created nor admitted any new State. 
 
 The ingenious gentleman has reasoned so profoundly upon constitu- 
 tional law that he has argued himself and his colleague out of their seats 
 in this Senate ! — Now, Sir, against this, 1 most seriously protest — they 
 cannot be spared — we need the aid of their talents and experience. 
 
 How will the gentleman escape from the consequences which I have 
 deduced ? Will he contend that the compact and the law were valid and 
 invalid at the same time ? That they conferred rights but could not im- 
 pose obligations upon his State ? Even if such an extraordinary position 
 were assumed — how would it affect the present question ? If he can 
 infuse any degree of vitality into that which was dead before its birth, 
 if he can make that compact efficacious as the consent of Georgia to Al- 
 abama's becoming a State, would it not also be effectual as her consent 
 that the United States should exercise jurisdiction over the territory so 
 far as to make treaties with the Indian tribes? If then the gentleman 
 will admit that Georgia assented to any thmg, by virtue of that compact, 
 she consented to the formation of these treaties, and thus they were va- 
 lid by her authority before Alabama was brought into being. 
 
 As a dernier resort, the gentleman insists that the true construction of 
 the language of the Ordinance gives all the right over the Indians for 
 which his State contends, because the latter clause requires that " laws'* 
 — " shall from time to time be made for preventins. rvrongs being done (o 
 " them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them " 
 
 That is, laws restraining the whites, our own citizens, from encroach- 
 ing upon the natives and thereby endangering the public tranquillity. 
 If Maine or New York should pass laws for " preventing wrongs be- 
 *' ing done to" the Canadians, " and for preserving peace and friendship 
 "with them" — would that give jurisdiction over the British provinces ? 
 But let us read the whole clause, the true construction of which confers 
 this unlimited power. 
 
 "The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians;" 
 — which means that we may violate all our engagements at pleasure ! — 
 " Iheir lands and property shall never be taken from them without 
 *' their consent;" — that is, both may be taken by violence against their 
 utmost resistance ! — " in their property, rights, and liberty they s^iall 
 " never be invaded or disturbed unless in just and lawful wars authori- 
 " zed by Congress." There shall be laws for "preventing wrongs being 
 " done to them and for preserving peace and friendship with them;" — the 
 true construction of all which is — that a State may make war upon them 
 at pleasure — deprive them of their lands — and annihilate their nation ! 
 To such arguments are gentlemen of great ability compelled to resort >
 
 23 
 
 rhe rights of the natives, both natural and conventional have beeu 
 strenuously denied. What right it is asked have the Indians to the 
 lands they occupy ? I ask, in reply, what right have the English or the 
 French, the Spaniard or the Russian to the countries they inhabit ? 
 
 But it is insisted that the original claim of the natives has been divest- 
 ed by the superior right of discovery. 
 
 I have already shown that this gives no ground of claim as against 
 the discovered, that it is a mutual understanding or conventional ar- 
 rurjgemenl entered into, by the nations of Europe, amongst themselves, 
 to define and regulate their respective claims as discoverers in order to 
 prevent interference and contests with each other, all agreeing that the 
 sovereign who should first find a new country should be left without 
 interference from them Lo deal with it and its inhabitants, according to 
 his ability and his conscience. 
 
 But, we are told, thai graiiis from the king are the highest title, and 
 have always been relied upon as such. True — as against other grantees 
 from the crown, or against the government itself; but not as to the 
 natives. If such a title gives any just claim as against them, then they 
 are bound to yield to it : for to every right appertains a corresponding 
 obligation. 
 
 Were the aborigines bound to yield to such pretensions ? Suppose 
 that, more than two centuries ago, when in unbroken strength they held 
 resistless sway over this whole western world, a royal patentee, with his 
 handful of followers, just landed on these shores, should have found 
 himself in the midst of a powerful Indian nation — the council fire is 
 lighted up, and sachems and warriors are assembled around it — he 
 presents himself, and says to them — 
 
 " This country is no longer yours. You must leave the forests where 
 you hunt, and the valleys where you live. All the land which you can 
 see from the highest mountain is mine. It has been given me by the 
 king of the white men across the waters. Here is his grant — how can 
 you resist so fair a title ?" 
 
 If they deigned any other reply than the war-whoop, their chief might 
 say— 
 
 " The Great Spirit, who causeth the trees to rise from the ground 
 toward the Heavens, and makelh the rivers to descend from the moun- 
 tains to the valleys — who created the earth itself, and made both 
 the red man and the white man to dwell thereon — gave this laud to 
 us and to our ancestors. You say you have a grant from your king be- 
 yond the waters— we have a grant from the King of kings, who reigns 
 in Heaven — by this title our fathers have held it for uncounted genera- 
 tions, and by this title their sons will defend it." 
 
 It has been strenuously argued that the overtlovving nations of Europe 
 had a just claim to the occupancy of some portion of the vacant lands of 
 the aborigines for their own subsistence. 
 
 The excessive population of China, and of Holland, have, at this day, 
 the same ground of claim against the United States. May they, there- 
 fore, drive us even from our cities and villages, and take all our ter- 
 ritory by force I — We permit them to come and possess, if they submit 
 to our laws and pay us for the soil. The Indians have been more lib- 
 eral, having ceded both soil and sovereignty to hundreds of millions of
 
 acres. The Clierok'ecs have no more to spare ; they need the residue 
 for themselves. Shall they be permitted to retain it ? That is now the 
 question. 
 
 To avoid, as far as possible, all questionable ground, I at present con- 
 tend only that the Indians have a right to exist as a community, and to 
 possess some spot of earth upon which to sustain that existence. That 
 spot IS their native land. If they have no claim there, they have no 
 right any where. Georgia asserts that the lands belong to her — she 
 must, and she will have them — even by violence, if other means fail. 
 This is a declaration of a right to drive the Cherokees from the face of 
 the earth; for if she is not bound to permit them to remain, no nation 
 or people are bound to receive them. To that for which I now con- 
 tend, the Indians possess not only a natural, but also a legal and conven- 
 tional right. These two grounds of claim have been blended and con- 
 founded. 
 
 The rights which the United States have claimed with respect to the 
 territory of the aborigines, have been two-fold ; pre-emptive and re- 
 versionary — A right to purchase, to the exclusion of all others — And to 
 succeed the natives, should they voluntarily leave the country or be- 
 come extinct. 
 
 it will at once be perceived that this is a right to exclude others from 
 interference, but not to coerce the Indians. It leaves to them the per- 
 petual undisturbed occupancy. They cannot indeed transfer their coun- 
 try to others — but this does not impair their title, although it may di- 
 minish its value in the market. It still belongs to them and their heirs 
 forever. If a State should, by law, prohibit its citizens from making 
 sale of their lands without the assent of the Executive — would it destroy 
 every man's title ? Nay, the laws do now prevent conveyances to aliens. 
 
 The right claimed is merely to exclude all others from purchasing of 
 the aborigines. It will be divested of much of its appearance of harsh- 
 ness toward them by recurring to its origin. It was the primitive agree- 
 ment or mutual unders'anding between exploring nations, that which- 
 ever should first find a new country, should alone possess the privilege 
 of dealing with the natives; and upon this ground the discoverer ex- 
 cluded others from becoming purchasers. He had the right of pre- 
 emption. This agreement trenched not upon the title of the aborigines: 
 and as to its affecting the value of their lands, by preventing competition 
 in the purchase, there would have been no purchaser but for the 
 discovery. 
 
 There is no mystery in the international law of discovery. So far as 
 it relates to this subject, it is tbo same as if five or six persons, being 
 about to go in search of sugar lands in South America, should mu- 
 tually entTiiore th..t t^t y would not interfere with each other in their pur- 
 chases. Such agre .aient would do no wrong to the original owner. 
 
 The reversionary claim, as it may be denominated — although in strict- 
 ness that cannot revert to another, which always belonged to the pre- 
 sent possessor — is the necessary consequence of the exclusion of others 
 from purcuasing. It is merely a right of succession to lands of the 
 Indians when thpy shall have become extinct, or have voluntarily aban- 
 doned them by emigration ; as the property of individuals sometimes 
 fescheats to the government for the wjwt of heirs.
 
 25 
 
 The right of the Aborigines, to the perpetual antl exclusive occu- 
 pancy of all their lands, has been always recognised and affirmed by the 
 United States. It was respected by Great Britain before ihe revolution; 
 as appears by the royal proclamation of 1763, in which all persons are 
 commanded " forthwith to remove themselves" from lands, "which not 
 " having been ceded to or purchased by us, are still reserved to the 
 " said Indians :" and after reciting that individuals had practised fraud 
 upon the the natives, forbids private persons from making purchases, 
 "to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our justice" and pro- 
 vides that if " the said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the 
 " said lands the same shall be purchased only for us, in our name at 
 "some public meeting or assembly of the said Indians, to be held for 
 " that purpose." 
 
 That right was recognised by the Confederation; as appears by the 
 whole tenor of their proceedings ; particularly their treaties, by which 
 they purchased a part and guarantied the remainder ; by the report of a 
 Committee in August 1787, which declares that the Indians have 
 "just claims to ail occupied by and not purchased ofthera" — and the 
 proclamation of Congress in September 1788, which has been already 
 referred to. 
 
 That, under our present Constitution, the rights of the natives and the 
 relation in which they stand to the United States are such as I have de- 
 scribed; is clearly manifested — by the Speech of President Washington 
 to the Senakas in 1790, from which I have already presented some ex- 
 tracts — and by the following explicit and deliberate letter of Mr Jeffer- 
 son, written to the Secretary of War in 1791 — '• I am of opinion that 
 " Government should firmly maintain this ground ; that the Indians have a 
 " right to the occupation of their lamis, independent of the States within 
 " whose chartered lires they happen to be ; that until they cede them by 
 " treaty or o'l-ver transactions equivalent to a treaty, no act of a State can 
 "give a right to such lands; that neither under the present Constitution, 
 " nor the ancient Confederation, had any State, or persons, a right to 
 " treat with t!ie Indians, without the consent of the General Government; 
 " that that consent has never been given to any treaty for the cession of 
 " the lands in question ; that the government is determined to exert all 
 " its energy for the patronage and protection of the rights of the Indians, 
 " and the preservation of peace between the United States them ; and 
 •' that if any settlements are made on lands not ceded by them, without 
 '* the previous consent of the United States, the government will think 
 " itself bound, not only to declare to the Indians that such seftlemecls 
 •-' are without the authority or protection of the United States, but to re- 
 *^ move them also by the public force.'''' — Also, by the intercourse law of 
 1790 — forbidding all encroachments by citizens of the United States. 
 upon the " territory belonging to any tribe or nation of Indians ;" — by 
 many other statutes, particulary that of March, 1805 — by all the trea- 
 ties of purchase and cession — all the laws to carry them into effect and 
 pay the consideration — and all the acts for enablmg the Executive to 
 "extinguish Indian titles." 
 
 The Gentleman from Georgia (Mr Forsyth) has referred to the Cor- 
 respondence at G bent to sustain his denial of rights to the Indian tribes. 
 He relied upon the views of the American commissioners in repelling 
 4
 
 26 
 
 the claims of the British. As it is sometimes more satisfactory to reail 
 for ourselves, than to take the construction of others; permit me, Sir, 
 to present to you an extract from that correspondence. " Under this 
 •'system the Indians residing within the United States are so far inde- 
 «' pendent that they live under their own customs, and not under the laws 
 " of llie United States, that their rights upon the lands where they in- 
 " habil, or hunt are sernred to tliera by boundaries defined in amicable 
 ♦' treaties between the United States and themselves — and when these 
 ♦' boundaries are varied it is also by amicable and voluntary treaties by 
 " which ihey receive from the United States ample compensation for 
 " every right they have to the lands ceded." " Such is the relation be- 
 " tween them and the United States : that relation is not now created 
 " for the first time nor did it orieinate with the treaty of Grenvilie." 
 And subseq-iently, " the treaty of Grenvilie was merely declaratory of 
 " the public law — on principles previously and universally recognised. 
 
 To this. Sir, was subscribed the names of Adams and Gallatin, of Clay 
 and Bayard and Russell. 
 
 The Gentleman from Alabama (Mr. M'Kinley,) to show that the na- 
 tives had no title to the soil, cited the case of Johnson and Mcintosh, 
 decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, and reported in the 
 8th of VVheaton. 
 
 To see how precisely that case sustains my positions, let me read a 
 few very short extracts from the opinion of the Court as delivered by 
 Chief Justice Marshall. It declares that the right of the United States, 
 or the several States, is "subject to the Indian right of occupancy.'" 
 "That, the original Inhabitants are the rightful occupants of the soil, 
 *' with a legal as K'ell as a just claim to retain possesaon of it, and to use 
 *' it according to their onti discretion/^ And again, " it has 7iever been 
 " contended that the Indian title amounted to nothing. Their right of 
 *' possession has never been questioned.^' 
 
 Georgia herself has recognised those established rights of the natives, 
 and the relation they bear to the General Government. 
 
 Bv a law, pa*sed in 1 796, respecting the vacant lands within her char- 
 terv'd limits, she held the following language : " the territory therein 
 " mentioned is hereby declared to be the sole property of the State, suh- 
 '"'■ject only to the right of ireaty of the United States, to enable the State 
 " io purchase under its pre-emption right the Indian title to the same." — 
 A most pregnant act of legislation. It expressly admits " the Indiaa 
 "title'' — that the claim of the State is only "to purchase" under its 
 pre-empti' n "right" — that even this she could not do, unless "enabled" 
 by the United States — that the United States had " the right of treaty" 
 with the Indians ; and that the claims of Georgia were "subject to" that 
 right. 
 
 In the compact of 1 802, she stipulated, by reference to an Article of the 
 Ordinance before mentioned, for the inviolability of the lands, property, 
 rights and liberty of the Indians, upon the territory relinquished : and 
 recognised their just claim to lands, in that which was retained, by the 
 Article which binds the United States " at their own expense" to extin- 
 guish the " Indian title" thereto, as early as it could be done "peace- 
 ably and upon reasonable terms."
 
 27 
 
 The titles of thft Acts which I read, and several others, speak of the 
 lands therein disposed of as "acquired," "obtained" from thf; " Creek 
 and Cherokee nations," by the treat-es held by the United States 
 
 Even the Act of December last contains a plenary admission that the 
 lands in question were never before subject to her jurisdiction A part 
 of the title is "to extend the laws of this State over" — " the territory 
 " now occupied by the Cherokees." The 6th section expressly extends 
 the laws of the State over the same and the inhabitants thereof Sir, does 
 not the legislation of every State, of itself, operate upon all the country 
 within its jurisdiction ? The laws of Georgia were not biifoie limited 
 to any parts of the State ; they were general — they covered the 
 whole ; and, are now — extended over the residue ! 
 
 We have heard a great deal in this debate of the rights of conquest ; 
 and are told that it is always recognised as valid by the judicial tribunals. 
 
 True, Sir ,by those ot the conqueror. How can they do otherwise ? 
 Suppose that Congress, should now declare a war for the sole purpose 
 of wresting Canada from Great Britain, and should succeed ; could our 
 own courts question this exercise of political power, and refuse to sus- 
 tain our jurisdiction over the country, however iniquitous the acquisi- 
 tion ? And if in this Government, where the political sovereign is un- 
 der the restraints of the Constitution, the courts cannot interfere, how 
 could they in Europe, where this doctrine had it-* origin ? There the 
 legislative and political powers are unlimited. Even in England the 
 parliament is legally omnipotent ; and who ever heard of a judicial court 
 undertaking to annul any of its enactments ? 
 
 Whatever may be the acquiescence of other nations in the exercise 
 of power by a conqueror ; it is no ground of just claim as against the 
 the conquered. — They surely are not bound to submit, if new means of 
 resistance can be found. 
 
 To give to conquest — to mere force — the name of right, is to sanction 
 all the enormities of avarice and ambition. Alexander and Bonaparte 
 are justified I — Britain has done no wrong, in sweeping India with the 
 hand of rapine, and holding fifty millions of people in thraldom! AH 
 the cruelties of the Spaniards in South America — the crimes of Pi- 
 zarro and Cortez — tracking the fugitive natives in terror and dismay 
 with blood hounds to the caves of the mountains ; and stretching their 
 wretched monarch upon burning coals to extort from him the secret of 
 his treasures — are sanctified hy the name of right! This right of con- 
 quest gentlemen contend is the legitimate off«pring of the right of disco- 
 very. Sir, the pirates on the coast of Barbary and at Barataria exer- 
 cise both. They find a ship alone upon the ocean — this is discovery. 
 They capture her and murder or enslave the crew — this is conquest. 
 Both these rights are thus combined and consummated ; and their valid- 
 ity will not, I presume, be questioned either by the courts of Barataria, 
 or other bands o{ similar conquerors. 
 
 But even this miserable argument of conquest is not applicable to the 
 Cherokees. They were not subjiigated. The Southern Indians had six- 
 teen thousand warriors, with arms in their hands. They were power 
 ful ; their trade was war ; they did not solicit peace. We sought for it, 
 as appears by the resolutions of Congress, of May, 1783 — and March, 
 1785. We obtained the treaty of Hopewell in which gentlemen find
 
 28 
 
 the expressions, the " United States give peace" to the Indians, and 
 " allot boundaries :" and, by a philological criticism, upon the English 
 terms, which we used, they logically deduce the rights of conquest! 
 What did the unlettered Inrlian, understand by those expressions, but 
 that there was to be an end of war ; and that his territory was to be 
 sacred ? The treaty contains many reciprocal stipulations of the " con- 
 tracting parties." Will it still be contended that we are not bound by 
 them because the other party was conquered — in other words because 
 we were the strongest ? If the United States made terms of peace 
 should they not abide by them ? If a be;<ieged town capitulates, are 
 not the articles of capitulation obligatory ? When Bonaparte dictated 
 treaties of peace in the capitols of the nations which he had over-run — 
 was he not morally bound to observe them ? They indeed might com- 
 plain that the contract was made by constraint when they were not 
 free agents ; but who ever heard of the stronger party claiming to be 
 absolved from his engagements, because the other was subject to his 
 coercion ? 
 
 It has been repeatedly aksed, why not leave the Indians to the legis- 
 lation of the State ? 
 
 I answer, because they protest against it, and they alone have the 
 right to judge. They demand of us the protection, which we solemnly 
 promised. 
 
 Much has been said of their being untutored savages, as if that could 
 dissolve our treaties ! No one pretends, that they are less cultivated 
 now than when those treaties were made. Indeed, it is certain, that 
 they have greatly advanced in civilization ; we see it, in the very proofs 
 introduced by the gentleman from Georgia, to show their barbarism. He 
 produced to the Senate, a printed code of Cherokee laws ; and a news- 
 paper issued from a Cherokee press ! Is there another instance of 
 such productions from any Indian nation ? I was surprised, that with 
 all his scrutiny, he could find no more remnants of savage customs. I 
 shall not dwell upon his selections from their laws. The tirst was; that 
 if a horse should be stolen; and the owner, finding the thief in posses- 
 sion, should immediately kill him, in the excess of passion — it should 
 rest upon his own conscience. It is to be observed that the person slain 
 must have been guilty ; and for such an offence, life is now taken by 
 the laws of England. But this provision inserted in the Cherokee code, 
 more than twenty years ago, has yielded to further light, and been 
 since repealed. Time will not permit me to dwell upon their advances 
 in the arts of civilized life. It is known to have been great. They 
 till the ground, manufacture for themselves, have work-shops, a printing 
 press, schools, churches, and a regularly organized Government. In- 
 deed, the gentleman from Tennessee, himself, told us that some indi- 
 viduals of that nation were qualified for seats in this august assembly. 
 
 What danger, it is asked, have the Indians to apprehend from the 
 laws of the State ? 
 
 What danger ? Is it not here avowed, that their presence is a nuis- 
 ance, from which Georgia wishes to be relieved ? Has not her legisla- 
 ture declared, that she is determined to have their lands at all hazards, 
 even by violence, in the last resort ? And, if left to her unrestrained 
 power, can it be doubted that she will find the taeans of carrying that
 
 29 
 
 determination into effect ? If the laws heretofore enacted, are not suffi- 
 cient, may not others be resorted to ? Let us, for a moment, look at the 
 measures already adopted, and see if they^ have not some adaptation to 
 the accomplishment of her wishes. 
 
 By the 9th section of the Act of 1828, no Indian in the Creek or 
 Cherokee nations, can be a party or a witness in any suit, to which a 
 white man may be a party. It is said thai this has beenrepealed by the 
 statute of 1829 I think otherwise. The latter contains no repealing 
 clause, nor any incompatible provisions. Both may well stand logethsr, 
 and both would be enforced according to the usual construction of sta- 
 tutes in pari materia. It is true, that a partof the title of the act is; to 
 repeal that 9th section of the former. This is easily accounted for. 
 The act, as first reported by the Committee, probably contained a re- 
 pealing clause — which was stricken out by,the more zealous majority — 
 the original title remaining unchanged. 
 
 But suppose that only the law of 1829, is now in force. What is to be 
 its effect ? All the laws, usages, and customs of the Cherokees are abro- 
 gated, and severe punishments denounced against those who shall pre- 
 sume to act under them. Their Government is dissolved — their political 
 existence is at an end — their nation is destroyed — it is resolved into its^ 
 original elements ! We know that their lands are not holden by indivi- 
 dual ownership ; the title is in (he nation. To annihilate the tribe, 
 therefore, as a political community, is to destroy the owner ; and the 
 State is then to take the whole by her claim of succession. 
 
 By this statute ; no Cherokee or descendant of a Cherokee can be a 
 witness against any white man, who does not reside within the "nation." 
 This devotes their property to the cupidity of their neighbours; it leaves 
 them exposed to every outrage, which lawless passions can inflict. 
 Even robbery and murder may be committed with impunity, at noon- 
 day, if not in the presence of such whites, as will become prosecutors or 
 witnesses. 
 
 This, the gentleman from Georgia as«!erts, creates no new disability ; 
 that Indians are not competent to testify, by the common law, either in 
 England or in this country. That I deny. They are good witnesses 
 in both; and have been so, without question, ever since the case of the 
 Gentoo, in the time of Lord Mansfield. Several were recently admit- 
 ted by the Courts of New York, in a very important question of title to 
 real estate near the falls of Niagara ; and 1 have myself seen a person, 
 convicted of larceny, to a large amount, in the Supreme Court of Mas- 
 sachusetts, upon the testimony ot an Indian. 
 
 But the gentleman assigned, as a reason for his assertion, that a be- 
 lief in a future state of rewards and punishments, was essential to their 
 admissibility as witnesses. True, Sir, and so it is with respect to all 
 others. The objection is as valid against a white as a red man. It this 
 act creates no new disability, why was it passed ? Why not leave tliem 
 to the provisions of the common law ? But, Sir, we learn from an in- 
 telligent Missionary, that there are a thousand members of Christian 
 Churches. — These, and all other true believers are excluded. Even 
 those who are so distinguished for their knowledge, integrity and ability, 
 that the Honorable Chairman would be willing himself, to be represented 
 by them, in the Congress of the United States, are not permitted to tes- 
 tify in a court of justice.
 
 30 
 
 Under these enactments, the Cherokees are aliens — in their native 
 land : trespassers — upon their own soil : outlaws — in the bosom of their 
 own nation ! 
 
 But why should I dwell upon the laws already passed, when the same 
 power can, at will, produce others to eflectuate their avowed determi- 
 nation. Who will pretend that the Indians can live under the legislation 
 of the State ? The Head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in a communi- 
 cation transmitted to Congress by the Secretary of War, declares that it 
 \vill "seal their destruction, as admitted by their Chiefs ;" and the 
 Hon. Chairman has frankly declared in this debate, that it will reduce 
 them to the last degree of wretchedness ; — hi? words were — "you can- 
 •' not make a full blooded Indian more miserable" than by such subjec- 
 tion ; and, in his written opinion of 1824, he emphatically says, if " the 
 " protection ot the United States is withdrawn," " the Cherokee Nation 
 " cannot exist twelve months." 
 
 The question now proposed, bj' this amendment, is, shall that protec- 
 tion be withdrawn ; and the Indians be compelled to leave their coun- 
 try under the penalty of certain destruction, if they remain ? 
 
 The interrogatory has been often repeated, why should not Georgia 
 extend her laws over the natives as well as other States ? 
 
 Again, Sir, I reply — our treaties — our treaties. The Indians object, 
 and the United States have solemnly promised to interpose at their 
 request. In no other instances have they opposed State legislation, 
 and demanded our interposition. This is a sufficient answer. 
 
 But this topic has been so much urged, and the effort has been so 
 great to find shelter under the precedents of other States, that I will 
 bestow upon them a moment's attention. That principally relied 
 upon, and the only one specified, is a law of New York passed four 
 or five years ago. The occasion was this. In one of the little reduced 
 tribes, within that State, a female had been executed as a witch. The 
 executioner was indicted in the State Court before one Judge and con- 
 victed. The question of jurisdiction was carried to the superior court, 
 who never come to a decision, but advised a pardoning act ; where- 
 upon this law was passed, which punishes certain high crimes commit- 
 ted within the tribe. Its sole object was the protection of the Indians, 
 and it seems to have been by their consent. They have never object- 
 ed, much less claimed our interposition ? Does this bear any analogy 
 to the case of Georgia and the Cherokees ? When another tribe, the 
 Oneidas, formed a constitution of Government similar to that of the 
 Cherokees, did New York interfere to destroy it and dissolve the nation ? 
 Far otherwise, they protectpd them in its enjoyment. And such has 
 been the general character of the legislation of other States. I shall 
 aot go back to the early days of colonial vassalage, although it is sur- 
 prising that so little colour of precedent is to be found, even when the 
 weakness of infancy was struggling for existence against the power of 
 the savages. I speak of the States, since they became such, under the 
 Confederation, or the Federal Constitution ; and say that their general 
 legislation has been — not over the Indians, and acting upon the individuals 
 within the territory of their tribe; but protecting and preserving them as 
 a distinct community — operatmg upon the whites and restraining them 
 from inflictiDg wrongs and injuries. The legislation of Georgia ha?
 
 31 
 
 thrown over thera a net, which binds every limb in fetters ; but is no 
 shield of defence against assaults; whilst that of other States has erected 
 around them a wall of defence guarding them against encroachments. 
 
 This bill, Mr. President, provides for the removal of the Indians to 
 distant regions, beyond the Mississippi ; and it is proposed to place no 
 less than half a million of dollars in the hands of the Secretary of War 
 for that porpose. The amendment, now under consideration, declares 
 that they shall be protected, in the enjoyment of their rights, until thev 
 shall choose to remove. The necessity Ar such a provision is apparent. 
 Without it, they have no option. Without it, this bill will add to the 
 pressure of the torrent that is sweeping them away. 
 
 Is it not known that Acts for holding Indian treaties have been used as 
 instruments of coercion.'' When our commissioners have met the 
 chiefs in council to obtain further acquisitions of territory, have they 
 not sometimes asked only what will you reserve? And when the answer 
 has been, we have no lands to spare — we will cede nothing ; the ques- 
 tion is repeated — what will you reserve 1 — Congress have passed a law 
 for the purpose of obtaining a portion of your soil — the United States 
 are strong — their arms now sleep in peace — beware how you arouse 
 them from their slumbers ! 
 
 iSJot only has terror been inspired, but other means have been resort- 
 *;d to, to cause the women to influence their husbands ; the children to 
 beseech their parents ; the warriors to urge the chiefs; until ti)eir firm- 
 ness is overcome. It is related of a venerable chief, that yielding at 
 last to this irresistible pressure, he signed the fatal parchment in tears — 
 declaring at the time that it was the death warrant of his nation. 
 
 Apprehendmg that our object is to obtain further cessions, the In- 
 dians have met us in council with fear and trembling. In on'? instance, 
 five or six tribes being assembled, our commissioners announced to thetn 
 that our only desire was to establish and preserve peace among them- 
 selves ; that we a?ked for no lands : — they instantly rent the air with 
 acclamations of j'^y. No difficulties, no delays intervened — the treaties 
 were accomplished at once. 
 
 Is it uncharitable to suppose that agents, to be appointed under (he 
 direction of those who are now concerned in our Indian aflairs, may re- 
 sort to force or terror ? 
 
 Sir, the oflicer now at the head of the Indian bureau, in his official 
 report of a treaty of cession, made by him with the Oeeks, states the 
 fact, that in two successive councils he n)et only a tirm denial ; and iu 
 the third, be says, one individual being most prominent in his opposition, 
 it Was not until he =' broke him upon the spot" that the treaty was ob- 
 tained ! Yes, sir, that officer avows that he "broke" one of the promi- 
 nent chiefs in their own council, as the only means of accomplishing his 
 purposes ! 
 
 And in an official communication sent to us by the Secretary of War 
 at the commencement of this session, the same officer recommends thi.t 
 the government should send an " armed force" to the Cherokee coun- 
 try, to further the objects of this bill — the removal of the natives. He 
 says indeed, that he would make a solemn declaration that the military 
 were not to be used to compel thera to leave their country ; but only 
 to give security to those that were willing to go. And would such a de-
 
 32 
 
 claration, even if made, do away the effect of the presence of our 
 bayonets ? What is the avowed purpose ? To protect, against their 
 own government and people, the individuals who may choose to emi- 
 grat'.' ; but not to afford any aid or countenance to those that may choose 
 to remain. The chiets may inquire — will these soldiers give us protec- 
 tion against the power of Georgia, if she shall attempt to force her laws 
 upon us ? The reply must be, Oh no — the President has decided that 
 she has a right to govern you ; and if you should resist, the United States 
 are bound to assist her m the execution of her laws against all opposi- 
 tion. When the British minister remonstrated against the Emperor Alex- 
 ander's annexing a part of Poland to his dominions he replied — I have 
 three hundred thousand soldiers in that country. The argument was 
 conclusive. If the Cherokees should hesitate; they might, in significant 
 silence, be pointed to our glittering bayonets ! 
 
 It is recommended to send an armed force to enable the Cherokees to 
 deliberate freely ! 
 
 When the Roman orator appeared in defence of Milo ; he found the 
 forum surrounded by an armed force, accompanied no doubt by the rfe- 
 claration that it was only to preserve tranquillity. But even the tongue 
 of Cicero was palsied by the formidable array, and his friend and client 
 was abandoned to his fate. We know, Sir, how the deliberations of the 
 Parliament of Great Britain, and the National Conventions of France, 
 h;:ve been aided by the presence of an armed force ; and history abounds 
 with similar examples. 
 
 I confes?. Sir, that I cannot but indulge fears of the use which may be 
 made by the War Department, of the half of million of dollars, to be ap- 
 propriated by this bill. We do know, that, in making Indian treaties, 
 there have been instances of valuable reservations of lands, and large 
 sums of money, being secretly given to individual Chiefs, by confidential 
 arrangements, to induce them to yield to our wishes and betray the con- 
 fidence reposed in them by their nation. Is it uncharitable to appre- 
 hend that such things may happen under the directions of the present 
 Secretary of War ? 
 
 Toward that high officer I have no feeling of unkindness. I seek no 
 imputation upon his motives; but his official acts lam bound, by the dutie; 
 of my station, to examine. Look at the instructions given by him in May 
 last, to General Carroll who was sent as an agent of the Government t© 
 induce the Cherokees to a removal. They express throughout much 
 solicitude for the welfare of the Indians, and profess to consult their best 
 interests. But I am constrained to look at the acts to be done — the course 
 of conduct prescribed He is directed not to meet the Cherokees in 
 *' general Council" for '' the consequence would be, what it has been, a 
 " firm refusal to acquiesce;" but to " appeal to the Chiefs and influen- 
 " tial men — not together, but apart at their own houses ; and to make 
 " qff'ers to them of extensive reservations in fee simple and other rewards^' 
 to obtain " their acquiescence." He is further told — the more careful 
 " you are to secure from even the Chiejs the official character you bear 
 "the better" — and again " Go to them not as a negotiator, hul friend.'' 
 <' Open to each a view of his danger" — again, " enlarge on their compar- 
 " ative degradation as a people and the total impossibility of their ever 
 '• attaining to higher privileges while they retaia their present relations
 
 33 
 
 •' 10 a people who seek to gel rid of them"— that their laws "will be sii- 
 •' perceded and trodden under foot." Again— " enlarge upon the ad- 
 " vantage of their condition in the West—Xheve the General Government 
 " would protect ihem— improve them by instruction." They would be- 
 rome our equals in privileges civil and religious, and that " by refu- 
 "sing" to remove "they must, necessarily, entail destruction upon 
 "their race." 
 
 1 cannot but remark the parallel, between the course here prescribed 
 and that which expelled our lirst parents from Paradise. 
 
 When theArch Tempter sought their removal, he assailed them " not 
 together;'' leal their joint '' coimcil" should have baffled his arts; but 
 found the feebler woman ''apart'' from her husband, dej.rived ofthe 
 aid of her natural adviser — and carefully concealing his '■'official charac- 
 ter"— of ShVm'ic majesty ; assuming the guise of a "friend;" a kind in- 
 structor ; he told her pursue the course which I advise, and the evils 
 which have been predicted shall not iollow ! — "ye shall not surely 
 " die"-^but you shall be enlightened and elevated — "your eyes shall 
 "be opened and ye shall be as g«jds knowing good and evil-" She 
 listened and yielded — 
 
 " Earth felt the wound, and natuve from her seat 
 " Sighing through all her works gave signs of woe 
 " That all was lost." 
 
 She was then made the instrument of seducing the man also — And both 
 were driven from the garden of Eden, where their Creator had placed 
 them, to the unsubdued wilderness of the world — and a flaming sword 
 forever barred their return. 
 
 The adoption of such measures is, in the language of the military Se- 
 cretary to "move upon them in the line of their prejudices" And 
 upon whom is it that we thus move? Those whom we have most 
 solemnly promised to protect as faithful guardians ; whom we have 
 called brothers ; whom we have taught to look up to the President, as 
 their great father. Yes, we have endeavored to obtain over them the 
 influence of a parent ; but do we perform toward them the duties of that 
 sacred relation ? 
 
 It is said that we must resort to such measures ; they are unavoida- 
 ble. The plea of state necessity is advanced. And is this great coun- 
 try, with peace in all its borders, now controlled by an irresistible pow- 
 er, that knows no rule and consults no law ? Does tiiis measure wear 
 the garb of state necessity? Thai, Sir, is a high -banded tyrant — not a 
 smooth-tongued seducer. It is a lion, seizing its prey with open and 
 resistless fctrength — not a serpent winding its sinuous way in secret to 
 its victim. 
 
 Without the adoption of this amendment, the Cherokees have no 
 choice, but between the miseries of emigration, and destruction where 
 they are. It is contended that it is for their best interest to remove. 
 Leave that. Sir, to their own decision. Our judgment may be too much 
 guided by our own convenience. We undeitook to judge for the Se- 
 minoles in Florida. We asked for their fertile lands ; they objected, 
 .5
 
 34 
 
 asserting that the residue would not support existence. We peisisled ; 
 and found inians at last to obtain a reluctant ce-sion. They departed 
 in the deepest sorrow from their homes of comfort and plenty, to en- 
 counter want and misery upon a barren waste. Nineteen-twentieths 
 of the territory which we left to them, consisted of sands vvhere no 
 verdure quickened, and of swamps upon which humm life could not be 
 sustained. The draary description offi:ialiy civea by Governor Duval 
 can hardly be exceeded. The consequence was, wh it the Seminoles 
 foresaw — want, suffering, and starvation. The government was forth- 
 with compelled to give twenty thousand dollars for food to preserve 
 life, and to retrocede a portion of their territory. 
 
 Whither are the Cherokees to go ? Wiat are the benefits of the 
 change? What system has been mitured for their security? What 
 laws for their government? These questions are answered only by 
 gilded promises in general terms ; they are to become enlightened and 
 civilized husbandmen. 
 
 They now live by the cultivation of the soil, and the mechanic arts. 
 It is proposed to send them from their cotton fields, their farms and 
 their gardens; to a disiant and an unsubdued wilderness — to make 
 them tillers of the earth I — to remove them from their looms, their 
 work-shops, their printing press, their schools, and churches, near the 
 white settlements ; to frowning forests, surrounded with naked sava- 
 ges — that they m ly becom^. enlightened and civilized 1 We have pledg- 
 ed to them our protection — and instead of shielding them where they 
 now are, withm our reach, under our own arm, vve send these natives 
 of s southern clime to northern regions, amongst fierce and warlike 
 barbarians And what security do vve propose to them? — a new guar- 
 antee ! ! Who can look an Indian in the face ; and say to him ; we 
 and our fathers, for more than forty years, have mide to you the most 
 solemn promises ; we now violate and trample upon them all ; but offer 
 you in their stead — another guarantee ! ! 
 
 Will they be in no danger of attack, from the primitive inhabitants 
 of the regions to which they emigrate? How can it be otherwise? 
 The oflBcial documents show us the fact, that some of the few, who have 
 already gone, were involved in conflicts with the native tribes, and com- 
 pelled to a second removal. 
 
 How are they to subsist ? Hts not that country now, as great an In- 
 dian population, as it can sustam ' What has become of the original 
 occupants? Have we not already caused accessions to their numbers, 
 and been compressing them more and more ? Is not the consequence 
 inevitable, that some must be stinted in the means of subsistence ? Here 
 too, we have the light of experience. By an official communication, from 
 Governor Clark, the Superintendent of Indian affairs ; we learn that 
 the most powerful tribes, west of the Mississippi, are, every year, so dis- 
 tressed by famine, that many die for want of food. The scenes of their 
 suffering are hardly exceeded by the sieges of Jerusalem, and Samaria. 
 There might be seen the miserable mother, in all the tortures which 
 hunger can inflict, giving her last morsel for the sustenance of her child, 
 and then fainting, sinking, and actually dying of starvation ! And the 
 orphan ? — do one can spare it food — it is put alive into the grave of the
 
 36 
 
 parent, which thus closes over the quick and the dead ! And this not in 
 a solitary instance only, but repeatedly and frequently. " The living 
 " child is often buried with the dead mother."* 
 
 Mr. President : I am aware that their whits neighbors de«ire the ab- 
 sence of the Indians ; and if they can tind safety and subsistence beyond 
 the Mississippi, I should rejoice exceedingly at their removal, becausft 
 it would relieve the States, of their presence. I would do much to ef- 
 fect a consummation so devoutly to be wished. But let it be by their 
 own free choice, unawed by fear, unseduced by bribes. Let us not com- 
 pel them, by withdrawing the protection, which we have pledged. Theirs 
 must be the pain of departure, and the hazard of the change. They 
 are men, and have the feelings and attachments of men; and if all 
 the ties which bind them to their country, and their homes are to be rent 
 asunder; let it be by their own free hand. If they are to leave forever 
 the streams, at which they have drank, and the trees under which they 
 have reclined: if the tires are nevermore to be lighted up in the council 
 house of their chiefs; and must be quenched forever upon the domestic 
 hearth, by the tears of the inmates, who have there joined the nuptial 
 feast, and the funeral wail : if they are to look for the last time upon the 
 land of their birth — which drank up the blood of their fathers, shed in its 
 defence — and is mingled with the sacred dust of children and fiiends — to 
 turn their aching vision to distant regions enveloped in darkness and 
 surrounded by dangers — let it be by their own tree choice, not by the 
 coercion of a withdrawal of the protection of our plighted faith. They 
 can best appreciate the dangers and difficulties which beset their path. 
 It is their fate which is impending ; and it is their right to judge ; while 
 we have no warrant to falsify our promise. 
 
 It is said that their existence cannot be preserved ; that it is the doom 
 of Providence, that they must perish. So indeed, must we all ; but let 
 it be in the course of nature ; not by the hand of violence. If in 
 truth, they are now in the decrepitude of age; let us 'permit them to 
 live out all their days, and die in peace ; not bring down their grey 
 hairs in blood, to a foreign grave. 
 
 I know. Sir, to what I expose myself. To feel any solicitude for the 
 fate of the Indians may be ridiculed as false philanthropy and morbid 
 sensibility. Others may boldly say, " their blood be upon us;" and 
 sneer at scruples, as a weakness, unbecoming the stern character of a 
 politician. 
 
 If, Sir, in order to become such, it be necessary to divest the mind 
 of the principles of good faith and moral obligation; and harden the heart 
 
 * Extract from an official report of General Clark, Superintendent of Indian Af- 
 fairs, dated March 1, 1826. 
 
 " The condition of many tribes west of the Mississippi is the niost pitiable that can 
 " be imagined. During several seasons in every year they are distressed by limine, 
 " in which many die for want of food, and, during which, the living child is often bu- 
 " ried with the dead mother, because no one can spare it as much food as w>'uld 
 *' sustain it through its helpless infancy. This description applies to Sioux, Osages, 
 "and many others, but I mention those because they are powerful tribes, and live 
 " near our borders, and my official station enables me to know the exact truth. I'. 
 " is in vain to talk to people in this condition about learning and religion.''
 
 3t> 
 
 against every touch ol humanity ; I confess that 1 am uot, and, by the 
 blessing of Heaven, will never be — a politician. 
 
 Sir, we cannot wholly silence the monitor within. It may not be 
 heard amidst the clashings of the arena; in the tempest and convulsions ot 
 political contentions : but its " still small voice" will speak to us — when 
 we meditate alone at even tide ; — in the silent watches of the night ; — 
 when we lie down and we rise up from a solitary pillow ; — and, in that 
 dread hour, when — " i^ot what we have done for ourselves, but what we 
 have done for others" will be our joy and our strength ; when — to have 
 secured, even to the poor and despised Indian, a spot of earth upon 
 which to rest his aching head, — to have given him but a cup of cold 
 water, in charity; will be a greater treasure than to have been the con- 
 querors of kingdoms, and lived in luxury upon their spoils.
 
 mv. OF CALIF, LIBJtm, LOS 
 
 A.7G2LE5^" 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 to tf^ 
 
 S^' 
 
 
 
 o\sc^#' 
 
 9BB 
 
 
 5W6 
 
 
 12198^, 
 
 
 ^;7 
 
 )-URC 
 
 rorm L9— Series 
 
 3^
 
 d 1 lb« UUZttO Z.