Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE CO^STITCm^AUST. ms r onp:r & ssiwi'i:. * . —.— *. „ —.— !} TERMS —Fur tab semi, weekly paper, pub'Chc d] rvrry Tia r-ilny and Friday i!iominr» fsaper amium'j for the weekly B>3, ail payablei;; advance. j ■' arc inserted weekly fur Gr2;[ l*« cents per square ; ?• m:-v.etk!y G 2 1-2 et a' . r the . - . ~ij li’ri 43 3-4 fur eiicti inset.ion,|j and monthly fur S 1, 00 per square lor each insertion.!; lor yearly advertisements private arrangements are . to hr made. A deduction is made ou the advcrti-c-l. n;cms of public officers. (I 1 V Po "age most be paid on letters of business. From the Georgia Journal. ij KOI GII SOTt:s Os a rrriem of the decision o f the Supreme Court, in ’’ :}ip cue, of Samuel A- 11 or cater i;.-. the Slate of 1 Georgia. nV A GEORGIAN. Hovrevf r much *.ve may have been ; irpn.-cd by tin _*! :m< at of the Court in the present case, and how j much •v. r our feelings may have been excited by its• perusal, it is not cur intention to'express the one or the ofh<-r. Our pur;. >.-e i.-, I nelly, to try its facts by the: . ..ns 1 ird of hi: tori-aI truth, end its principles by those • I the constitution. V. ; regret that the court consider-] ed it noci ssary to di> ium any agency in bringing the! e i < under its consideration. Wc arc justified in sus {■ cting the guilt of him, who makes a voluntary expur-j _•*';.an ol a crime tliat hr? not been alleged against him.j The gratuitous declaration of the Court, that it has not; choice ol the case.- brought before it, subjects it to such;] suspicion. If we are not greatly mistaken, no judiciali| body in any country h i? been so famous for throwing outr intimations, as lights to future litigants, as the Supreme] <' >urt of the United States ; particularly, when tire de cision was adverse to it? own in the case, it might be then considering. \Ve refer especially to the c.ise of Marbnry vs. Madison, and the Cherokee Chan cery case vs. The Slate of Georgia. Il wc charge the | Court unjustly, wc wish to be corrected. But, to the , • uv and the testimony. i In the crude and desultory observations we may offer, ; •here will be no attempt to follow tiie Court in the order | ol discussion adopted by it. We shall, therefore, com- j ?ru nee with the sac ts of the case, which, if wc arc not greatly mistaken, wc shall shew have been altogether mistaken or misrepresented, and tlint the. Court has err-. e l equally in its application of constitutional principles. > The decision prueee is upon the assertion that the rights h of discovery wore relative only to the discoverers. 'lh.it j $.» far as natives were concerned, the discovering na. : ■ ons acquired onlv the right of pre-emption to Indian 1 : mil ; and nut an absolute right to settle such land, or i to exercise jurisdiction over its inhabitants. ■ Vs o do not intend t > understand thn Court to set up the dis- I faction between moral mvi political right. We con-;j ad r the assertion as intended, in the hitter sense only.ij Tit at it is assorted, that such political right, was never j, asserted or exercised by the colonizing nations. On thi.*ji ground, we take issue, and say that such right is con-j dnsively shown to have Ir en asserted and maintained, throughout the history of American colonization. For proof of this, we refer first to the conquest and settle ment of the Spanish West Indies and ol the continental j colonies of Mexico and Pern. But, we will not rest i ■ .iir case upon the history of Spanish colonization. Vi c!( assert that the same principle of entire sov; reignty, was exercised by Grcat-Tiritain, over the whole country on liis continent, wliieh fell to her share in the general al otment, that had been exercised by Spain, in the conn, ri- s above mentioned, notwithstanding its exercise flight have been characterized by a more scrupulous re gard to the principles of humanity. This w maintain by the fact that Cre^t-Britain in every it. tmee granted charters to her colonists before any contract had been entered into with the natives, for places of settlement; and that, however, the acquiescence of the Indians might have beeir subsequently obtained, the settlement would have taken place without it. This is proved by the manner in which the Indian tribes tire mentioned in her charters ; in the commissions of her colonial Govern, oi - , and in the instructions and proclamations issued for flu ir government. —This right is substantially asserted in t!ie extract from the charter of Rhode Island, insert, ed in the decision. If this was not intended, why did Gie .t.Britain confer on Rhode Island, under any con dilioii or modification whatever, the power to “ invade and destroy the native Indians,” or the further power, to invade the Indians within t’ae other colonies, upon giv. • g notice of such intention tothc colony, within which stuck Indians resided ? And yet, such power was giv. en. Could such power have been conferred on the co lony without its belonging to the mother country ?* Bat what has become of the Narragansetts, which . tribe, once so powerful, has dwindled to a contemptible hand.id of miserable beings? When did the Supreme Court interfere to save them from the “tender mercies” of Rhode Island ? But, it may be said, that the mother country only delegated to her colony a power possessed! by every nation, to defend itself against foreign enemies,' without attempting to confer on Rhode Island any juris diction over the Indians. Wc are sure, and so we assert, that with the same access to historical evidence, which was within the reach of the Supreme Court, we could shew, conclusively, that Rhode Island lias exercised o. ver the Indians within iier limits, a mare inquisitorial jurisdiction, than has over boon exorcised over the si ives, by the patrol system, of any one Siatc in this Union. That their only right of possession, by the laws of Mas. sichusetts, was occupancy, and improvement of land.l Thai she gave premiums for their scalps, and for the; raising of dogs to hunt them. We well remember to! have seen a collection ol colonial and State laws, which; W as published by order of the Iljuse of Represent .lives! of the United States, ’l iving hot n compiled by one of itT committees, shewing that jurisdiction had been claimed; and exercised over the Indians, in nearly all the old j States of ‘Jus Union. Particularly the States oft .\nv England, Now-York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, ! mul we have If in our power to show that such jurisdic-' tiim was exercised by Connecticut, \cw. York and Perm-]; ?vl--mi.i, by reference to their enactments, judicial de cisions, sic. And first of Corniced , ut, This State assume 1 juris, diction over the Indians, so early n? 1G72. which is proved to ha\o been continued by various legislative enactment? tip to the year 1821, inclusive.—ln the former year, an act was passed “1 *r lire . well ordering of the Indians,” containing among < thers, the fallowing provisions: “That all and every Indian and Indians, that shall be found passing and repassing in any town in this colony, after the shutting in oft .j evening, (except ho or she, shall> give sufficient reason, taat there was necessity thereof,) shall forfeit, and pay the sum of twenty shillings, where, of, fifteen shillings shall be to the county treasury, and five shillings to the cumplainer, or complainers; or be I whipped, not exceeding s.x stripes, &c.” “Every In-1 di in convicted of drunk ■ mess, in the colony , shall for. feib and pay the sum often shillings, or b ■ openly whip-: pc i, not exceeding ton stripe? for one offence, L •• That no Indian shall, a’ any time, pawaw, or perform outward worship to false Gods, or to tlie Devil, within! this Colony, ou pain of forfa iting the sum of five pounds to the public treasury of this colony, A c.” In the ye ?r 1717. the following was enacted: “ This as- uably observing many dilficuitie.s and perplexities a ii-i.'g in this government, by reas >n of many purchases}, of land, mad oi India:; tides, without the preceding al-, lii-.vanne or subsequent approbation of tills assembly :j which to remove, j •• P is hereby enach'd, <Sr declared by tiii? assembly,) and the authority thereo.', that all lands in this govern-} ment re hold.cn ut the K’ug of Great Britain, as the lord! of the fee, and that no title to any lands in this colony, can accrue by any parch--c made of Indians, on pre-j tence of iheir being >.'ati t proprietor? thereof, without th allotvar.ee nd ap ’r<> ■ ition , f this assembly. “ .U;d l» it further res Are J. That no conveyance of native right cr Indian tide without the allowance and • approbation of thi? asst ir.bly. shall be given, in t vid, ncep of any man’-- title, or pleud.il*!.» in any Court.” And in 17‘W. ati a v. as p issed, providing, “That if any Indian!l: or Indians within ties C > "y, shall wilfully and violent-!; iy fall up >n any oilier I-idt n or Indians, (except i: be ! ‘: such us they rent mu t war with,) and murder him or!! th- a, and be re d legally convicted, every such mur-'i riercr sk ill be put to death. And it the Indians shall imt *to ju?t t xeeuiton ou such murderer or murderers, speedi-! Iy. die next stant or justice of the peace, shall forth-i * i, cause linn or them to be apprehended, and com mi::- Ito tin: com non jui', without bail or mainprize :■ * * if t ire might iiarr net the Court on itsoirn ground. and sterna that th, r ght of pre-empiijn, excluding a!l\ jiiirck trrs ei.rl nil t tticre. tut ha permission or autkon-; ii/ rs Ureot Britain, asserted jurisdiction as paramount 1 end unconditional <; - the act of the legislature of Gear-, git under tchi'h Worcester teas tried, cud conrictrd,. i a;:J punished, and we uy-u’.J remind our readers that t v e truesti»n of jurisdiction alouc teat brought in question \ f.p ’ case before the Court.- >* * i iherc w reuiam fur inal, at the next Superior f who are hereby empowered, to hear and determine the cose, according to the laws of the Colony.” Another act was passed by the Legislature of Connec i ticut, in the year IttOd, “for well order.ng and g ivern i log the Indians in this State, and securing their interest,” ! containing the following provisions: : I “Sec. 1. That it shall be the duty of the civil authori jty and selectmen of such towns, wherein are any tribe! of Indians, to t ike care tliat they be well ac-j ‘quaiated with the laws of the State, made for punishing j . such immoralities as they may be g’lilty of; and make; them sensible that they are liable to the penalties in case . t they transgress the lavs. I “Sec. 2. And any Indian that shall be guilty oi wil-• fully murdering any other Indian, shall be put to death,! ; o;i being tht reof convicted, be lore the Superior Cour.’’ J “Sec. 3. And every Indian who shall be convicted ofj I drunkenness, shall pay a fine o! eighty-four cents, or be , i set in the stocks not exceeding two hours, nor less than; 1 one hour.” I ‘■•Sec. 4. And every Indian who shall be convicted of, profaning the Sabbath or I.ord's day, by unnecessary la ; bor, or play, shall pay a fine ol fifty cents, or sit in toe . J s’oeks one hour, at the discretion ot the authority be-j j lore whom the conviction is.” _ ; j The last act of die Legislature of Connecticut, on this' subject, which has fallen under our observation, was passed in the year 1821, from which we extract the lob. lowing provisions:—- “Sec. 1. I>e it enacted L.f the Senate and House of li-' present at: reu, in General Assembly convened, T. nat an overseer shall be appointed, to each tr.be ol Indians, living within the limits of the State, by the county court, j in the county in which such tribe resides, who shall have ; the management of their lands, and see tout they are husbanded, for the best interests ot the Indians, ] and applied to their use and benefit.” _ j “Sec. 2. The overseer of each tribe ol Indians, shad j i annually state and settle his account ol tiie concerns oi i such tribe, with the county court, in the county within • which such tribe resides; and on failure thereof, or fori any neglect of duty, such county court m iy remove him from office, and appoint another in his place, and sue;; j court may, at any time, cull such overseer to account.” . Thus it will be seen, that so far as Connecticut is con cerned, our allegation is borne out triumphantly, tliat en ! tire sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Indians has j i been asserted by her, both over tiie transfer ol Indian; | lands, and the punishment of offences committed by In | dians, for one hundred and sixty years, ami yet we hear; of no petitions to Congress on their behalf, nor appeals; ! to the Supreme Court, from the Judgments ol the Courts; lof Connecticut. But, as before stated, our testi-j mony does not stop with the history of Connecticut. So early as 1777, New. York asserted entire jurisdiction , , over the Indians, as we find by the following enact ( ment : “That no purchases or contracts for the sale oflands. j made since t!ic fourteenth day of October, in the year of; ' our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five,; 1 or which may hereafter bo made with any of the s iid In-; I dians within the limits of this State s.iali be binding on | ihe said Indians, or deemed valid, unless made under ! the authority, and with the consent of the Legislature ot . i this State.” j Again in the year 1783, the same jurisdiction is aS- 1 i serted in the following : . “And whereas the Oneida and Tuscarora tribes in habiting within this State, have been distinguished by their attachment to America, and have thereby entitled * themselves to protection ; and the said tribes by their j humble petition, having prayed that the.r lands may bo; j secured to them, by the authority of the Legislature; j ] and, it being just that such n settlement sho’uld he made , | of the territorial claims of the said tribes, as will give them reasonable satisfaction and secure their future tranquillity. “Sec. 2. De it therefore further enacted by the au thority aforesaid, Tliat it shall and may be lawful to and fbr the said C ommissioners, and they arc hereby au thorized and required, to examine into and ascertain the claims of the said Oneida and Tuscarora tribes, and to devise such measures, and make, and cuter into such propositions and agreements, (j secure their contentment and tranquillity, as to the said commissioners shall ap pear just and proper: Provided always. That no proposi tion or agreement for the purposes aforesaid, shall be | conclusive until the same shall be reported to, and ratifi ed by the Legislature.” In the year 1813, the laws relative tothc Indians wore revised, and in them may be found provision? securing | to “ Mohegan, Montauk, Sronington, and Narragansett Indians, and the Peynots of Groton and Nehantieks of Farmington, and their posterity,” the lands previously secured to them, without the power of alienation, and | adding the territory inhabited by them to the town ofj Paris, in the county of O imda. For appointing an at- ] tonioy, to the Brothertown, Oneida and Stockbridge l tribes of Indians, and an agent for the Onondaga tribe of; Indians. The Senecas reside on lands reserved to them j by treaty. In obedience to their law, Soonon Gize, or Tommy Jemmy, put to death a woman of the tribe, for which he i was prosecuted, and convicted of murder. In an opin ion delivered by Chief Justice Spencer, it is declared] tliat, j “ These Indians arc horn in allegiance to the govern- i ment of this State, for our jurisdiction extends (o every! part of the State ; they receive protection from us, and j are subjected to our laws.” “ For a long series of years, wc have exercised an ( entire supremacy over all the tribes wjrfaiu the State, aud have regulated by law their internal concerns, their contracts, and their property.” “ I know of no half way doctrine on this subject.” “ It •annot be a divided empire, it must be exclusive;' as regards them aid us ; and the act referred to, as-! well as the actual state and condition of the Indian: ! tribes, within this State, shews that the jurisdiction is i in this State, &c.” } This subject was afterwards brought before the Leg. I islaturc, which, after re-affirming - the jurisdiction, par-1 doned him because it was “ represented that the said j murder was committed under the pretence of authority,! derived from the Councils of the Chiefs, Sachems and ; Warrior? of said tribe ; and, under the then existing i circumstances, it is deemed by the Legislature expedi ent to pardon him.” Thus it will bo seen that New- j York asserts :md maintains a jurisdiction over Indians! jas unlimited as that exercised over her white popula-j ( tion, and that she ha? done so at least so far back as an i early period of the revolution. But the History of Pennsylvania, furnishes additional; evidence of the exercise of Colonial jurisdiction over ■ the Indian tribes. Tiii? jurisdiction was asserted hv i her as early as the year 1700, but more explicitly in 1713 , or 4, by “ an act, for tire speedy trial of capital often-! ecs, committed by any Indian or Indians, in the remote! part? of this province.” To shew how far the authori-’ ty of the province was extended over the Indians, we make the following extracts from the act, the title ot which is recited above. “ To the end that all capital offences, which have been, or hereafter shall be, committed by any Indian or : Indians, within the bounds of this provice, in places re-1 mote from inhabitants, may receive the most speedy and impartial trials.” “ Be it enacted by the Hon. George Thomas, Esq. with tiie King’s royal approbation, Lieutenant Governor, under the Hon. John Penn, Thomas Pena and Richard' Penn. true and absolute proprietaries of the Pro-' yince of Pennsylvania, and of the counties of New Cas tle, Kent and Sussex, on Delaware, by and with the ad vice and consent of the Representatives of the Free men of the Province, in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the same; That all murders, man slaughters, homicides, felonies, and offences, whatso ever, and accessaries of tiie same, which by the lawsl or acts of Assembly, of this proviuc-*, arc declared cap-! ital. or felonies punishable by death, which already have] been committed, perpetrated or done, by any Indian or] Indians, within tiiis Province, in places remote from in-] habitants, as aforesaid, ail and every such offence and! oneiices, in whatsoever place and county the same hath happened, or shall happen, snail henceforth be inquired] of, heard, adjudged, and determined before tlie Justices of the Supreme Court, or the Justices ot the Courts oi, Over and Terminer and General Goal Delivery, to be held in the county of Philadelphia, by indictments, in quests and verdicts, to be taken ot good and lawful men,] inhabitants of the same county, in like manner aud form, as if such c.anital offence or offence?, had been com mitted. perpetrated or done, within tiie sai-J county, any law or usage, to the contrary thereof, in any wise not-, withstanding.” Thus have wc exhibited the most unquestionable evi dence of the exercise of entire and uncontrolled juris diction over the Indians, by Connecticut, New. York and ; Pennsylvania. Nor should we. if the laws of the other Colonies and States were equally accessible, find much difficulty in shewing the exercise of similar jurisdiction, j by most of them. We may enquire of the Court, how; Maryland acquired jurisdiction over the Nan'ioks. Vir-! ginia over the Pamunkeys and Notts ways, or South-]' Carolina over the Catawba? ? It may be answered, byjl voluntary surrender. But that would be an admission i tliat the assertion of the Court was untrue, and further, | would be in violation of an important principle implied ! in the decision, that the relation of the Indians to the- Government of the United States, is such as tlicy-can-: iiioi caadgc, except by the permission ofthai govern. jf : mem. ;1 But we need not rely alone on the history of Colonial ji j legislation, to show that such jurisdiction has been ex- . ercised bv a large majority of the old thirteen States |. i •,i for fay the provisions of the intercourse law ot ION., u iis obvious that all the old States are exempted - ' operation but North-Carolina and Georgia ; tue established in the first section, not interfering with aaj ! I other States, to the eastward ot Ohio. And why this !| exemption ? Be cause they have and exermsc exclusive ; ‘■'jurisdiction within their own limits. Inc C.oi-rt^ 'jther asserts, that the right of pre-emption, and not.ang S; more, belonged to Great Britain, beiore the e-laoUsn- Niunt of American Independence, and aithougu it does Hnot directly make the assertion, yet tacitly assumes tnat. |such right ot preemption passed, at dial period, .o tne , i United States, in their confederated capacity. , Here we must take leave to iiold the contrary ion, and we think we can shew satisfactorily suen : i right, if it existed, passed to the respective States. it . will not be questioned, tb it every “ power, juriSuiction, j 1 and right,” previously possessed by Great Britain, ; od to tiicse States immediately upon the estaq.ianment of American Independence. As stated, the argument., ! of the Court implies that they passed to the conledera- ; 1 tion. We assert the contrary, 'file declaration - j dependence was adopted on the 4th day ot Jaiv, imo, , and the articles of confederation were finally ratified on ! the Ist day of .March 1781, near five years afterwards, at the former period, therefore, no State had partca wua , one tittle of its sovereignty, but possessed it as tully and entirely as it had ever been possessed by Great Britain. It is useless to answer that the Declaration and cStaD lishtnent of American ladepcudence, were not siiinina-i neous, for in legal intendment that Independence lakes, 1 date from the fourth day oi July, - 17 <6, and our political j calendar is regulated accordingly. It tlien^ follows irre sistibly, that the rights acknowledged by Great Britain, in the treaty of 17c3, to pass to tue States, vested in them respectively, at the date o! the Declaration ot In- ! i dependence, and before tiie existence ot the contedera tion. But how have these “powers, jurisdiction and ' rights,” been restrained by the articles ot Confedera l tion, or by the present Constitution. By the ninth arti ■ c!o of Confederation, it is provided “ that, the I nited : States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and; , exclusive right and power o! regulating the trade, undo , managing a!! tiie affairs with Indian tribes, not members j of any of the States ; provided, the .Legislative right ot any State within its own limits be not infringed or vio-, iated.” _ t | Then, what arc legislative rights of a State? Can ■ | there be more than one answer ? What is a State, but ia sovereign power ? And what may not a sovereign power: jdo within its own limits ? Has ft not jurisdiction over cv- j ’■lory person, and every tiling within those limits I Most,, ! I unquestionably. Especially as every “ power, junsdic-, ition and right,” previously held by Great Britain, had; passed to the respective States. Consequently, thenar-j tide of confederation did not confer any power on Con-, i gress to interfere with an Indian tribe within the limits of a State, and every act attempting such interference, ! was an act of usurpation. But we may fearlessly assert, , that the sense here given to the clause just quoted, was j that upon which a large majority of the States acted in I reference to themselves ; as the federal government has not intermeddled with the Indians within their limits, I nor is it believed any other interpretation was given to 1 it, except as regarded North-Carolina and Georgia. It ! is believed that more than one motive, more than the: [ motive either of patriotism or humanity, produced that; i difference in its practical interpretation. Some of the; I States, now most clamorous against Georgia, wished to 1 coerce from her and North-Carolina, large cessions of, their uugr.anted lands. But the most strenuous, Rhode ‘ Island and New Jersey, then expressly disclaimed any i intention to interfere with the jurisdiction ot States thus; situate:!. But by the same article of confederation, it ; is provided, that “the United States in Congress assera-1 | bled, shall hive the sole and exclusive powers ot enter-j j iug into treaties and alliances.” And here, vve admit, I I that various contracts were made with the Indians dur-! | ing the existence of the confederation, but we deny that; j they were entered into by virtue of the treaty-making j power. Because they were not considered by Congress: j to bo treaties according to the standard laid down in the; ; resolution of the 21st of March, 1787, that “on being| constitutionally made, ratified and published, they be-1 came in virtue of the confederation, part of the law ofi the land,* &c.” Now, according to this standard, and it I is that to which the Congress of the confederation con-j formed in their treaties with foreign nations, these con tracts with the Indian tribes, were not, and now are not treaties, not having ever received the formalities ol rat-' i ideation and publication, and consequently, are not a part jof the law of the land. We may advert to the second; | article of confederation, to shew that no power was in-| l tended to be conferred on the U. States, beyond what; j was explicitly set forth in that instrument. “Each State j i retains irs sovereignty, freedom and independence, and! I every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this, ! confederation expressly delegated to the United States) ! in C -ogress assembled.” Now, so far from having dele-; i gated such authority over Indians as is contended for by | tiie Court, the confederation was restrained from inter- j | sering, with such as were “ members of any of the j i States.” And, also provided, “ that the legislative right i of any State within its own limits, be not infringed or vt-;i i dated.” Applying, therefore, our definition of such “le-| | gislafive right,” Congress had not, under the confedera j- tion, anypowerto legislate over, or make treaties or other; contracts, with the Indians, within the limits of Georgia. The treaty-making power, as contained in the articles! of confederation, except in regard to commerce, was as! broad as that subsequently confirmed by the constitution. | If, then, under the confederation, Indians were hot con-: ! sidered as coming within the scope of its operation, nei-| ! thcr can they, by any fair interpretation, be included! i within its exercise under the present form of govern-! r incut. | But, we beg leave to older a single remark, upon the! just iuleprctation of this power as conferred upon the I United States, by the articles of confederation. There: might have been some doubt, of the proper interpretation I of the first clause, as to what constituted an Indian the! member of a State. But all ambiguity is removed by lhe proviso, that the legislative right of any Sfate with in its own limits, he not infringed or violated. What ex pression could be broader or stronger than this ? If then] the legislative right, covers the whole territory within! its limits,” it must also extend to all persons, unless j they have been especially exempted from its operation. But much reliance, is placed upon the power to “ regu.! ! late intercourse with the Indian tribes.” We beg par ! don for preferring the language of the Constitution. I “To regulate commerce with the Indian tribes.” We may have peculiar opinions of the correct interpretation] | of this clause of the Constitution, but if they arc not ’ exceedingly erroneous, the Court cannot avail itself of 1 its provisions as the foundation ol the judgment we are considering;—The constitution also guarantees to each j State a “ republican form of government.”—We prefer to keep this latter clause in view in discussing the com | mercial power. In. regulating commerce with foreign nations, wc necessarily meet them as equals, and gene rally arrange the terms of our intercourse by treaty.: The constitution uses broad terms it is true in confer-' ring the treaty making power, as well as in confering the commercial power. But, are not these powers neces ! sariiy restrained by other parts oftbe instrument ? Most; * certainly, and of consequence by the clause just quot ed. Can the President and Senate in the exercise of j the treaty making power, or the Congress in legislating ! under the commercial power, bind the United State - in ; 1 the first instance, or legislate directly in trie latter, j ; to the destruction of repuli cun government in any one J lof these .States ? We answer no. But, what would | ! be the consequence of exercising the powers set up by j H the court, and the rights assumed by it for the Indians ? | Not only a change of the Republican form, but tiie abso- I 1 lute annihilation of the State governments, thereby vio.. t 1 luting the foregoing guaranty and that also v.lnch pro- ; i viilcs that “ no new Stale shall be formed or erected : within the jurisdiction of any other State ; nor any State 1 be formed by the junction of two of more States, or parts ! of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the,; States concerned, as well as of the Congees-.” Yet the | ; Cherokee State, thus sought to be established by the : court, would consist of “parts of” four States, North ( ‘ Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama, without ; the consent of the legislature of either or of the C >n- : gross of the United States, We have s-aid that the pow- ‘ ers claimed by the court, and the rights « : up by it for the Indians, would absolutely annihilate state gov emuient. Does to o power to regulate commerce with an Indian tribe give exclusive jurisdiction to rim United States within the countries occupied by them? It jive? : I jurisdiction equally exclusive over the white population of every State in this Union. D ies the exercise of the commercial power in the one case require that the ju risdiction should be exclusive ? The necessity is equally strong in the other. It is therefore a monstrous . absurdity for the court to set up such a doctrine, and an i act of odious and outrageous tyranny to attempt to en i force it.—But, there is another clause of the constitu ; tion referring to Indians, the consideration of whicla is especially relevant to our present enquiry. We mean . * This revolution referred erpeclally to the treaty of ! peace with. Great Britain* * that which prescribes the banner of making up th«-re preventative population, and that clause whu h excludes from enumeration “ Indians not taxed.”—M ill tae court. d-. nv that Indians may be. included in such enumeration, ifthey have been taxed ? And, yet, we believe we might j safely assert that, at the formation and adoption of the cons'itulion, there was not one taxed Indian tn'. the t in ted States. Wc have never heard oi one. We do noi believe there was one. If there was not, the conclu. sion is irresistible that Georgia has the power to tax everv Cherokee within her limits. And, if there were I thousands of Indians taxed at the time referred to.it cannot obviate our conclusion, as the clause was not i made for exclusive application to the then present mo-. men t, but for all future time. If then Georgia may j tax the Cherokecs, or might have taxed them, shall; Is’ie, while possessing this high sovereign rignt of taxa- ■ i tion solemnly guaranteed to her, be ousted of her juris-, diction over a portion of her own people ? By what au- ■ I thoriry than shall the Supreme Court, or any other tri bunal, declare over how much of her territory, or how ; I many of her people, Georgia shall extern, her junsdic- j tion’ Her charter as enlarged and defined by the com-; mission to Governor Wright in 1764, extended to cor- j tain points ; a portion of her southern boundary being tae j i,-hirtv first degree of North latitude. This boundary was . contended for as the southern boundary of the United, States, because it was the Southern boundary oj Georgia, in the instructions under which the treaty ot peace was j ne"Ociated with Great Britain, which treaty was made | toconfonn to it. Again tiie same boundary was contend- j ed form our various attempts tonegociate with Spain for j the same reason, from the days of tiie revolution up to the i treaty of Sa;i Lorenzo el Real, in 1795, and iedg-, ed and settled by thru treaty. For a clear exposition ot j this subiect we refer to the argument of Mr. Jefferson; while Secretary of state to President Washington, as j well as to the various instructions given by the Con- j gross of the confederation to the commissioners and ministers appointed to negociate with threat Britain and Spain. . . Wo know there were those during tine contedcration who insisted that the wild land within the several States was the common property ot the Union, and this in the face of that clause of tho articles which declares that 4? :io State shall bo deprived oi territory tor the benefit of the United States.” Bat Congress never acte i upon ‘such au assumption.—We understand the Court to assert jbyhnpl cati m that tiie various and earnest reconimenda lions of Congress to the States to make liberal cessions] of land, grew out of the question of jurisdiction over the j Indians.” This was not the fact. These cessions were ] recommended for the purpose of enabling Cotigress to provide for “paying the debts and defraying the expen ses of the Union.” for the truth of this we appeal to the Journals of the Congress ot the confederation. W e know that at least one State was influenced, in her ear nest demand of the wild lands ot another as the propel-• tv of the Union, bv an apprehension that the latter, it such lands should be retained by her, might become au overbearing neighbour. W c have heretofore adverted to the second article ot confederation, in connexion witn others to enforce our views of the powers conferred by them, in relation to Indians, and have shewn that so fur from the power to exercise jurisdiction over Indians with in a State being granted, it was expressly prohibited. We know that an attempt has been made to draw a dis tinction between that article and the tenth amendment to the constitution, because the word “expressly” is not used in the latter- This attempt is no way remarkable, but as shewing on what frail support a bad cause is some times placed for reliance. But, by a fair, “honest, com mon sense interpretation,” it will not bear such construc tion.—Tiie amendment provides that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by-if to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But what would have been the import of the word “expressly,” if it had been made to precede the word delegated in the first member of the amendment ? Would it not have applied equally to the s ;cond member of it ? The consequence then is, that as the use of that term would have applied equally to both members of the amendment, its import is pre cisely equivalent to the second article ot confederation, in limiting and restraining constructions ot tho constitu tion. We have said that the discovering nations claimed entire sovereignty over the countries on tho American continent, for the settlement ot which they granted char ters of incorporation to their subjects. We have shewn that this jurisdiction was exercised by several of the colonies, and asserted that it was exercised by nearly all the rest. We stated that absolute dominion was claimed by (lie colonizing nations, and that such claim was pro ven by the manner in which Spain acquired possession of her West India colonics, and of Mexico and Peru. Wc also stated that such claim could be proven to have been sot up by Great Britain, in her charters and other public acts, for the regulation of her American colonies. —This is clearly assumed in the proclamation ot I;G3, wherein the countries occupied by the Indians are said to be reserved under her “sovereignty, protection and dominion.” It is also shewn by reference to the com mission given to Governor Wright in 1761, that it was thereby “declared, ordained, and appointed, that the said Wright should hold, execute and enjoy the office and place of “C iptain General, and Governor in Chief in and over the Colony of Georgia, limited and bounded ns above described.” —The bounds and limits as stated in the commission, are precisely the same that arter wards established by treaty with Great Britain and Spain. We have before stated that the colonial char ters could not have been issued, and wero not issued' up on any other principle than the absolute “ sovereignly and dominion” of the colonizing nations; This is proven by the quotations inserted in the decision oi the court. It is true, that the proclamation of 1763, states, that the sovereignty and dominion ot Great Britain, were exer cised iu the premises ior tho benefit and protection of the Indians. But it is not the mode of its assertion and exercise, that is at issub between us; but the power actu ally'asserted and exercised by Great Britain over the whole extent of her American colonies. This we think we have placed beyond doubt, and that such power j passed to the respective states at the establishment o! ( American independence, and lias never been transferred i to the United States, either by the articles of confedera-t tiou or the present constitution. Me have said else-; where, that tho principle for which we contend has been ! recoernizeJ by federal legislation, and for proof referred to tiie intercourse law of 1892, from the operation o! which the Indians in every one of the old thirteen states, with the exception of North Carolina and Georgia, so far as we know or believe, have been exempted. Thus] making a largo majority of the old States examples ol; the rule, and North Carolina and Georgia the exceptions. The right to soil and jurisdiction as secured by charter is recognized, as well as the right o! pre-emption, by the act of Congress oftbe 2Sth of April, 1800, authorizing! the President to issue a patent to the State of Connec- ; ticut for her “ Western reserve,” on condition that she shall cede the jurisdiction over it. as well as ceding soil and jurisdiction to other lands, provided also that the United States shall not be bound to extinguish the In dian title to said Western reserve. But extraordinary as we must consider this decision, both for its reckless departure from the tjuth of history, as well as constitutional principle, there is no portion ol it which bas more excited our astonishment, than the as sertion that the legislature of Georgia “lias furnished conclusive evidence that the whole power, regulating tiie | intercourse with them, was. vested in the United States.” The contrary is established by the treaties made by the State of Georgia with the Cherokecs in 1783, and with •he Creeks in 1783. By the act for opening the land of fice and for other purposes therein mentioned, in the ! 13-. ii section of which, after declaring the boundaries of j the Suite as settled by charter, (the same as settled by j the treaty of peace with Great Britain and of San Lo-i ! renzo el Real with Spain,) it is enacted, that “ all justices j lof tho peace, surveyors, militia and other officers, and j ! persons of any description or denomination whatsoever, j [are hereby enjoined and required, and fully authorized! i and empowered to hold and consider the said limits, | boundaries and jurisdictional rights above mentioned, j expressed and described as the true and just limits,! boundaries and jurisdiction of the independent .Stare of; Georgia, as secured ro the inhabitants or free citizens ; thereof by their charter, and guaranteed as well by the i articles of confederation as bv the treaty of alliance wit lid | his most Christian M je -ry : Provided, nevertheless, that, j j nothing herein before contained shall extend, or bo con- j j Urued to extend to authorize or empower any person or j 1 persons whatsoever to survey, run or makd lines upon ) j the land before described as being u',owed to tiie lu-\\ ■d'ans for hunting; ground, or'any part, or parcel there- ■ of, before or until permission for that purpose shall-be j '{ranted by the legislature, and made kn -wn by proda- p I -nation ” By “an act for laying out a district of land ; situate on the river Mississippi, :- n I within the bounds of ; ill's State, into a county to be called Bourbon.” By the ;remonstrance of Georgia in 1785, against the exercise .-f ‘ids jurisdiction by Congress. By the act of the 7th j if January, 1733, commonly c .filed the “ Yazoo act.” •By the act of 13di of February. 1795, called the “ Re ; =-cm;l;!ig act,” in wm-rii the guaranty referred to in die land act ot 1703, is more distinctly stated by a refer lenee to the articles ot confederation and tae federal con- Is:. Each ritate retains its sovereigruy, “freedom and independence, and every power, jar : -iieHo“ md right, which is not by the coir- derarion ex v d -.a red to the United States in CY-igtess assembled.” “ State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the Lm n ted States.” 2J. “The powers not delegated to the United States; by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are ; 1 1reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ! | And it is further declared, that “ until the formation of; the confederation, there could belong no territorial rights | to the United States, nor after such formation within the | chartered limits of any State, but such as were specially > ceded and relinquished by the respective States; and' the people of Georgia have by no act of theirs or in any; manner or shape whatever, transferred or aliened, or| | delegated the power to transfer or alien the territory,” , i &c. By the remonstrance of——, 1797, against the ! ! ratification of the treaty of Colerain, and the validity of; ijali treaties made with the Creeks and Chcrokecs, made fin the exorcise of the power under consideration —and | by the constitution ot 1798. l We know there was a continual conflict between the | United States and Georgia on this subject, from the year | 1786, when Congress first attempted to exercise tins jipower to her prejudice, until the cession ot 1802. Mej 1 might h ive shewn, that the cession ert land offered by | I Georgia, in 1788, was declined in a manner recognizing | | her rights, and that in consequence of tiie protest ot 1797, the treaty of Colerain was ratified with an express ; reservation of the rights of pre-emption, and the tern- I tori d and jurisdictional rights of Georgia. Yct we know j that so early as the summer of 1797, President Adams ! recommended ta Congress, the establishment ot a terri- 1 i turial government on the Mississippi; that the recent-1 ! meudation was renewed the following winter, and an act i I passed in 1798, for establishing the Mississippi territory. | j and that that act expressly reserved the ‘erritonal and ; j jurisdictional rights of Georgia—A. by the supplements.-j ry act of 10th of May,lßoo it is enacted that “nothinginj i this act shall in any respect impair the right of tiie state j ; of Georgiato the jurisdiction, or of the said state, or ot I ! any person or persons to the soil of tire said territory, j but the rights and tile claims of tiie said state and all, persons interested, are hereby declared to be as firm and j available as if this act had never been made.” Thus, while enacting tiie high handed tyranny of establishing a territorial government within her limits, were the ter ritorial and jurisdiction:!! rights of Georgia expressly j j reserved. Inconsequence of this collision with the U-| ! nited .States, and the embarrassment growing out of the i —————— j * The following extracts from the opinion of the Sit | prciuc Court, delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, in the ! case of Fletcher vs. Peck, at Feb. term, 1810. will shew | some of the grounds on which the validity of the Yazoo grants was sustained by the Court. “ That the Legislature of Georgia, unless restrained by its own Constitution, possesses the power of disposing of the unappropriated lands within its own limits, Sn such manner as its own judgment shall dictate, is a proposi- j tion not to be controverted.” Upon further prosecution of the enquiry tiie Court dc- i cided, that the Constitution of Georgia did not restrain i her Legislature from disposing of such lands, and pro- ' ceeded to state the special verdict, whereupon thejudg- 1 meat was pronounced. “The jury find the grant of Carolina, by Charles 11, to the Earl of Clarendon and others, comprehending the whole country, from thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, to twpnty-nine degrees north latitude, and from the Atlantic to the South Sea.” They find that the most northern part of .iris territory ] was afterwards erected into a separate colony, and that ! the most northern part of tiie 35th degree of north lati tude, was the boundary line between North and South : Carolina. That seven of the eight proprietors of the ; Carolina? surrendered to George 11. in the year 1729, who appointed a Governor of South Carolina. That in 1732, George 11. granted to the Lord Viscount Percival and others, seven eighthts of the territory between the Savannah and Altarnaha, and extending west to the South Sea, and that the remaining eighth part, which was still the property of the heir of Lord Carteret, one of the orig- j inal grantees of Carolina, was afterwards granted to 1 them. This territory was afterwards constituted a ' Colony, and called Georgia. That the Governor ofi South Carolina continued to exercise jurisdiction smith ot Georgia. That in 1752, the grantees surrendered to the Crown. That in 1751, a Governor was appointed by the Crown, and with a commission describing the boun daries of the Colony. That a treaty of peace was con cluded between Great Britain and Spain in 1763, in which the latter ceded to the former Florida, with tiie Fort St. j Augustine and the Bay of Pensacola. Tiiat in October; 1703, the King of Great Britain issued a proclamation,} creating four new Colonies, Quebec, East Florida, West i Florida and Grenada, and prescribing the bounds of each; and further, declaring that all lands between the Alata maha and St. Mary’s should be annexed to Georgia. The same proclamation contained a clause reserving, under the dominion and protection of the crown, for the use of the Indians, all the lands on the western waters, and for bidding a settlement on them or a purchase of them from the Indians. The lands conveyed to the plaintiff, lie on the western waters. That in November, 1703, a com mission was issued to the Governor of Georgia, in which the boundaries of tiiat province are described, as extend ing westward to the Mississippi. A commission describ ing boundaries of the same extent, was afterwards grant ed in 1701. Tiiat a war broke oat between Great Britain i dr her Colonies, which terminated in a treaty of peace, ac- j know lodging them as sovereign and independent states. ■ That in April 1787, a convention was entered into be- j tween the .States of .South Carolina and Georgia, set- ; tling the boundaries between them. The jury afterwards described the situation of die lands mentioned in the plantifPs declaration, in such manner that their lying within the limits of Georgia, as defined in the proclamation of 1703, in (he treaty of peace, and | | in the convention between that state and Soutl%Carohna, I ■ has not been questioned. i The counsel for the plaintiff, rest their argument on a single proposition. I They contend that the reservation for the use of the Indians, contained in the proclamation of 17G3, ex- | liccpts the lands on the western waters, from the Colo- | j nics, within whose hounds they would otherwise have j j been, and that they were acquired by the revolutionary | ( war. All the acquisitions during the war, it is contend- ; j ed, were made by the joint arms, fur the joint benefit of j * the United States, and not for the benefit of any particu- : lar state. The Court does not understand the proclamation as , it is understood by the counsel for the plaintiff—The | reservation for the Indians, appears to he a temporary arrangement, suspending fur a time, tiie settlement of ' the country reserved ; and the powers ot the royal ; i Governor,.within the territory reserved ; but is not con- I ceivcd to amount to an alteration of the Colony. Il the ; language of the proclamation be in itself doubtful, the i Comrnisssions subsequent thereto, which were given toil ( the Governors of Georgia, remove that doubt. If is the opinion of the court, that the particular land I stated in the declaration appears, from this special ver- | j diet, to lie within the state of i gia had power _to grant it.” Reports of I | cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, by . I Richard Peters, Vol. 2. p, 217, 23 and 24. | Upon comparing the toregoing with the case under i | review, we find it impossible to reconcile their incon- ; i sistency with each other. In the foregoing,.the abso- i i lute sovereignty of Great Britain over the whole conn- ; ■ try embraced within the limits of her colonial charters, i is so clearly recognized, that whosoever runs may read.jj Why did she declare that the Indians were under her; j dominion, sovereignty and protection, if she held her;| jurisdiction at their \ylll ? And yet, the court admits}l her power to confer on the colonial governor ofGeor-jl j gia, jurisdiction over every foot of territory included i within lies limits. Could Great Britain have done this, i il she had possessed nothing more than tiie right of pre-emption within those limits ? The commission to j gov. Wright, in 1764, not only extends his jurisdiction I over the whole territory of Georgia, as defined in the i various documents referred to in the verdict, and rc | cognized by the court, but confers that jurisdiction with- : j out any reservation or recognition of Indian rights, asp ■ mentioned in the proclamation of 17(!3. The court has i ; said, that any ambiguity in the proclamation is explain-' od by the commissions. The commission is of later', ■’ date than the proclamation, and gives powers more am pie and without the restrictions contained in the pro- | clamation, and therefore revokes the latter as tj Geor- ; i | gia. Why then was the Western territory of Georgia ! I considered by the court in 1510, to have been within her i 'limits and jurisdiction Irom 1704. nq to that period, and i without them in 1832 1 ■ This is a subject of curious enquiry, the investigation | ;of which could do no honor to the character or consis- | itr-ney ofthe court. \\ e know it is not over charitable tu impute bad motives to any man. But, for ourselves, we i ■ are entirely at a loss how to explain such glaring incon sistency, without ascribing the recent opinions of the court to a determination to control the executive admin- j i.nration ot the government, by throwing itself into the ; .s tale of opppositlon to the re-election of the present I i chief magistrate. We believe the constant tendency ol the court has been to effect that by implication, per fas jautnetas, which the consolidationists failed to achieve in j tiie federal convention. That they are aow, and have el- , ways been co-operating with the aristocratic party to car- ; ry tiie government to ultra federalism —consolidation — j land to effect this, it is considered necessary to defeat the I re-election of General Jackson, and that the decision j ' under review was mad?; to promote that object. jj zoo sale, the grants wider which havobtt }; Gl as valid by the Supreme Court,* t iby the constitution of 1798, lor the sale off jTeai 11 the western lands ol Georgia to the United S* I t- h object was effected by the compact ot 1802 'r mist ; pact was considered by Georgia, to contain Wc 11 cession ” for the purpose of making “ an am.'' that ijment of limits between the two severe;miff"'" noti I! expressed in her deed of ratification, ; q uet 'to go over the details. It is sufficient to state’ thei 1 gii ceded to the United States, the whole off The ;!pied territory west of a given line, upon r. r! wer / tions, some of which have been fulfill,rd, Clou ji which the fulfilment will become iinpraeiic-};’ ■ i submits to this decision of the Supreme (’ United States have paid the twelve hundred thousand dollars as stipulate;!, and have cr< .m ritory into states. But they have not rta - . ;dians from ail the territory. We soy ( Jt . or ;cd the compact to guarantee mutual cession/ ■plod soil and jurisdiction west of the new bunff • ■—*~ -.the United Stales ceded “soil and jurisdictff.'-' j it. •j The United States, long ago, entered into iff. sion of what was ceded l»y Georgia. Tb / ; Court says Georgia shall not possess wiut v, i her. The terms of the respective cession’ ;same, Georgia cedes “ all right, title, and ckia tiie said Bta(e has to the jurisdiction and /' U, i; The United States code to the State of GcoriV- I.« j I ever claim, right or title they may have t> th,'../f |i tion or soil,” &e.—How then is it possible tff ■■ j; the respective cessions, a different rule of I tion ? ihd not the United States take all V.ffi | i houndai y agreed upon as clear of the jurisd ; - ■ I; Georgia as if it had never existed ? Did'not th/^ 1 tory East of the boundary pass to G.'orvri. as f | tiie jurisdiction of the United States ? Most'cer || The Judges of the Supreme Court arc critic., • , are not mistaken, they have given us an claboriK jj incut on the words “necessary and proper,” and - ;’ on the word “expressly.” Will they do us t!;e .define the word jurisdiction ?—But,'as this miff/ ■ haps, be a string too much of their condesceusi .r.. jjthcy may not comprehend it in any sense but. tV; pi jibrings every matter, civil, criminal, and politics}. | the verge of their authority, we will define i: r icr. rather, will furnish them with the dofii ffn. j great American lexicographer.—“ Jurisdiction," r, I ■ from L. jurisdiction.) i 1- The legal power or autliori’}-of doing j isti,'f; ti i sc? of complaint: the power of executing the law. ,S distributing justice. 2. Power of governing or legislating. , 3. The power or right of exercising anthoritv. k 4. The limit within which power may be ex,: *t ■ It would he easy to multiply authorities to the P I point. In what respect then have the United Stir. r 1 right to interfere with the soil or jurisdiction this- c t ferret! to Georgia by the compact of 1802—a w ; shew or propriety could the Supreme Court deck'. Georgia has acquiesced in the exercise by the ( States of the power to make treaties with the I: tribes within her limits ?—Her silence for seven! after the compact ot 1802, was made, proves onlr. she would not embarrass the fulfilment ot the off; to herself by objections to the. mode. It can he t ... | nothing more. We are not ignorant that .an attorn | been made to distinguish between the word “ j;;> tion,” as used in the first clause of the third m: j the fourth article of the constitution, and the wore jits” as contained in the original clause, and that iff jtinction is intended to imply that the word limits, hr. most extensive signification. But it is not so. Jm ; tion signifying not only the district or “ liniiff’v which authority may be exercised, but also the auth exercised. Having shewn satisfactorily, as we believe, f : ,r power assumed by the court, does not rightfully 1 j to the federal government in cither or all its departr Iwe might here rest our case. But we will offer a remarks to shew 7 that this case does not, fall at:mv within the jurisdiction of the court. If is not only i; ference to'the jurisdiction claimed by Great Urban exercised by a large majority of the colonics and v over the Indians, and the alleged acquiescence, of fr gia in the doctrines avowed by the court, that it fc taken or misrepresented important facts ; but also gard to the character of the plaintiff. He is called; ffizenof Vermont, and it is asserted that he was nr . among the Indians by the President’s permission. T such permission did not exist at the time of trial i • conviction is proven by that conviction, as the h Georgia, under which he was prosecuted, provide the unmolested residence of all persons having tin-■ mission, or otherwise in the employment of tba e.v live of the Union. Therefore the verdict disprove assumption of the court, that he had the permissi ■ the Tresid<*nt. But why is he called a citizen ■ mont? To give color of jurisdiction, and greater; sibility to the decision the court intended to pronou Wc say he Was not a citizen of Vermont, but that I;, sidcuce in Georgia, was such as to make him hnrer It was a residence intended to be permanent, an lff fusal to reeognize. the jurisdiction of Georgia con! affect its character. What constitutes a citizen otO I gia ? Being a citizen of the United States, ami i | a permanent residence in Georgia. The plnintiii [a citizen of the United Slates and had a pernnwr 1 sidertce w ithin the limits of Georgia, and was nc a ily iier citizen. Shall a citizen of one s’ate have- a: 1 (joy all the rights and benefits of citizenship warn rlcd in another, and not incur corresponding dutk obligations ? Most certainly not. Under thisvff the subject, what jurisdiction could Vermont rxc I over him ? None whatever. Isa owed her no a i ance, and she owed him no protection. Those 5 and duties existed only between him and Georgs'. We have said the court gratuitously assumed ft plaintiff citizenship in Vermont, for the purpose or ing jurisdiction of the case, well knowing that ff citizenship in Georgia been acknowledged, it would;' | been deprived of all color of constitutional right tot j cognizance of it. But according to our interpret; lof the eleventh amendment, this quibble will not l it ; for that amendment expressly ousts the court' ; risdiction in eases between “ a state and a citte j another state.” We know that Mr. Jefferson cor ed the federal court without jurisdiction against a and although we prefer testing any question by thc c ' ! ard of principle, rather then to refer to it the opini any man, we shall add one or two other author; 1 : support of him. In the discussions which took 1 jin (lie Virginia convention in 1788, upon the power ffhe federal judiciary, Mr. Madison said, “ I do not; ccive that any controversy can ever he decided bet"; lan American state and a foreign state, without the : sent of parties. If they consent, provision is \ | made.” In the same debate, Mr. Marshall, now I Justice, said, “ with respect to disputes between at" ' and the citizens of another state, it? jurisdiction ! been derided with unusual violence. I hope gentle | | will not think that a state will be .called a* tue . i tiie federal courtand after some other observar 1“ It is uot rational to suppose that the sovereign i i will be called before a court. The intent is to ctn i states to recover claims from individuals residing m ier states after speaking of the jurisdiction in c | between an American state and a foreign state, bc r j “ the previous consent of the parties is necessary. | as the federal judiciary will decide, the parties wt ; quiesce.” It is impossible to reconcile the ft” | course ol" the Chief Justice, with his recorded off in 1788.—Can it be that his opinions have been chV (by the possession of office for life ? Is this the e to be expected from independence of public opim-' We say independence of public opinion, because, - as that opinion may have been in n*arc than one n - * it Ims been found impracticable to reach a tyr :• i. judge, through the only provision of the consti v which lie is nominally responsible. We mean imp men!, and we mean to say with Mr. Jeffer'- J- ! i“ it is not even a bug hear.” However corff E iin our opudon, Georgia lias exercised, or P r ’ • . |to exercise her jurisdiction over the Cherok** 5 : wholly foreign to the present enquiry. The i question to he answered is, “ has site jurisdictic" jer them ?” In p.roof of the affirmative, we tflff ; nave advanced enough to satisfy any one, not c j mined to resist the evidence of truth and reason- • I unnecessary to recapitulate, as our observations hav; ; drawn out to a much greater length than wo antkff We will say this, that as the people of Georgia v stand their rights, we know they will maintain” I temperately, firmly; mqre than this is unnecessary. 1 | ly—we would not forget our self-respect, nor speak a ■ ] .b’uprcme Court in an unbecoming manner. v,i , b ■ accust rued to call things by their right name?, nor cs y, 11 | give to tyranny a softer appellation, whether it be an ted by a military or judicial despot. Wo know, p M •the face of all the facts and arguments we have aiff- | ‘ some will be ready to say, that the practice of thf; ,| | eminent has been such as to justify the decision > ; court. This we deny, and contend we have she"' ; the jurisdiction claimed by the court is an except| ; f ;fhe course pursued by the federal government j nearly all the original thirteen states of this Union. ;if our statement is controverted, vve reply, that “t' 3j j tion can create no right nor the exercise ot illoff . 3 ! thority any prerogative.” We have long believed'- | | this Union shall ever be dissolved, the mischief "• ' | the consequence of federal epcroaci^ucnt —and