Newspaper Page Text
• run THK CHRONICLE AND ADVERTISER. 1
I
Dr. \ght Visions of Departed Years. \
Bright visions of departed years, I
Ye cvershall be dear to me, i
Though view’d through sorrow's blighting tears, i
And hush'd is now your minstrelsy, |
i
The music sweet that love awoke, (
Ere his long fading brightness fled ■,
Before the minstrel’s harp was broke.
Affection's earliest hopes were dead.
Ere the dark grave had clos’d around
Those friends by every tie endear'd, ,
Whom joy and grief alike have bound
Fast to a heart forever scar’d.
3h! yet, bright days, you’re dear to me—
Dearer, that ye have pass’d away,
And lovelier, that through tears I see
The garland’s premature decay.
Still sweeternow the flowrel’s bloom,
And fairer is the chaplet’s wreath,
’ That they adorn a mother’s tomb.
And o’er my Mary's slumbers breathe.
And tho’ I roam, a stranger, far
From my lov’d home and native land,
■Directed by fiitc’s flickering Slav,
Thought lingers on the lovely strand,
Where hope first taught my heart to glow
And thrill at love’s electric glance,
Before these eyes were dim’d by woe,
Which no misfortune can enhance. i
Oh! yes, in fancy, oft I tread
My natal bow’rs, beside the rift,
And converse with the mouldering dead,
Or with sweet speechless raptures thrill.
Pull oft, beside the hearth where joy.
In former years, the smile awoke,
Does memory her sad hours employ, (
To hear the chaste familiar joke ;
Still deeming there, a mother’s voice
Palls softly on my boyish car,
1 in the pleasing dream rejoice,
Imagining that mother near,
3;ill mantles on mv Mary’s check,
The modest blush she fain would hide;!
Or beams those eyes that once could spear,
To cherish love or rudeness chide.
Yea, tho’ her lute, that sweetly woke, '
Dangs silent in my Mary’s hall.
And her Arion’s harp be broke, —
Still fancy shall those hours recall,
When their soft music's blending lay,
Rc-echo'd through the. woodland vale.
At the dim hour of parting day,
Upon the evening's dewy gale. ■
ARIOj.
ton THE CHRONICLE AND ADVERTISER.
LINES,
Composed on the Author’s incurring the displeasure of a
young Lady, whom he kissed, while deeply absorbed
(0 study.
Oh ! dearest girl, I meant no harm,
’Twas fVleudship’s kiss I gave to thee,—
I would nol, e'on tor virtue’s sake.
Disturb thy calm tranquillity.
fIIVOU MJ»U, ~•••. - —• # jt,..., ,
So sweet and mellow, tempted mine; I
1 dar'd nol, yet I could not stay (
Wy lips, dear girl, from pressing llano. {
But 1 have rued it, yes, 1 have ; ■
Well have J paid one moment's bliss;
And i'll be mindful, when again 1
I do attempt another Mss.
I
But, dearest girl, forgive me this; ,
It is niy first, my only crime.,
Forgive me this, mid I will be, ,
Tho’ Ihrtunc ftuwns, forever thine. |
Though, Emma, isl have wronged thee, now, |
With pleasure I’ll restore thy due,— 1
And fuithlbl, ever, to my vow, i
Restore the kiss I look from you. I
ALBERT. <
,—— _ . (
Extract from 1
HITS. FOSTER’S SPEECH, |
■Clk the Hill providing for the Removal of the Indian). ,
I tutne now, Mr. Chairman, to that i
jpi.rl of this subject which is considered 1
tiie most interesting 1 : The treaties made s
•by the United States with the Cherokees, t
and the guaranty contained in the treaty <
of llolston. This, sir, is the strong ground t
of our adversaries. Here the Cherokees s
have planted their standard, and run tip r
the flag of Independence, “ united states’ t
00 vrantv,” inscribed in staring capitals, t
Sir, lam not to be alarmed by this guar- \
only, imposing as it may be considered, c
1 shall contend, and trust I shall be able r
to show, that the United Slates had no i
right to make if; and if so, Georgia cer- 1
tamly is not bound by it. Sir, there are J
other treaties besides that of llolston: i
there is one of prior date—entered into t
between thirteen independent States, of n
which Georgia was one—l mean that t
Constitution of which I have just been 1
speaking, and to which this government t
must look for its powers. In that instru- r
inent not only are Uicse powers specified, t
hut the government is prohibited from the c
exercise of powers not granted to it.— i
But, sir, the federal Government, very t
early after its formation, began to evince t
a disposition, which its subsequent histo- <
■ry has more openly developed, to increase 1
Us powers. \Ve have a striking instance t
of this in tho treaty of Hopewell—the t
first treaty which it entered into with the c
Cherokees. In the second article oflliut c
treaty, “ the Cherokees acknowledge c
themselves to be under the protection of s
the United tStates, and oj no other sovereign c
whatever.” This is not the language of t
the Indians, for although some of their t:
Chiefs signed the treaty, it was imdoubt- s
cdly dictated by the United States’ Com- f
inissioners. These Indians were in the s
bounds of the States of North and .South e
Carolina and Georgia; the only power I
which Congress then had in matters of “
this kind, was, ’‘to manage the nfluirs of h
the Indians so that the legislative rights ti
of the States should not be violated.” t t
And yet, by this treaty, the United States tl
are constituted the sole sovereigns over v
tiiese Indians. Was not the legislative o
power of the Htafe set at complete defi- ;■
mice? But let ns examine tins guaranty: s
The treaty of llolston, in which it is coil- i
tained, was made in 1791. Here the Uni- t
ted States again obtained from the Che- e
rokees the acknowledgement that they t
were under their solo protection, and of s
no other sovereign whatever—ami then a
they solemnly guaranteed to them all r
.ibeir lands nut coded. Here let nio cn- a
quire what was the object and meaning
of this guaranty? Docs any gentleman
believe it was designed to authorise the
the Cherokees to organise or establish an
independent government? Can any one
seriously pretend that such a thing was
contemplated, either by the United States
Commissioners ,or by the Indians ? Such
an opinion will not be hazarded. The
utmostextent to which this guaranty was
intended to go was to secure the Indians
in the possession of their lands. The
idea of an independent government is ol
recent date; the right of the Indians to
form it, and claim the protection of the
United States, tinder the treaty of llol
ston, never suggested itself until Georgia
threatened to extend the operation of her
laws over that part of her territory in the
possession of the Cherokees. Then it
was that a delegation from that tribe
came on to this city, anti applied to the
President to protect them against the ope
ration of the Georgia laws. And it was
in answer to this application that the Pre
sident gave the answer which the gen
tleman from Now-York complains of,
and characterizes as arbitrary and despo
tic. He says that the President should
have waited for Congress—that it was
our province to have decided on this sub
ject. and his to execute the laws of the
land, one of the highest of which was the
Treaty. .Sir, one who knew nothing of
the facts in this case, and had only heart!
them ns disclosed by the gentleman,
would have supposed that the Prcsdcnt
was entirely a volunteer; that on coming
into office he had heard of the intention
of Georgia to exercise her right to ex
tend the operation of her laws over the
whole of her territory, and that he had
forthwith fold the Cherokees they must
remove—that the laws of civilized man
would soon he enforced against them, by
which they would be grievously oppres
sed—and that although he had found in
some old treaty a guaranty by which the
government were bound to protect them,
yet he should pay no regard to it; and if
they would not remove, he should leave
them to their fate. But was this the case?
What, Mr. Chairman, is the history of
this matter! The Legislature of Geor
gia, eighteen months ago, asserted, by re
solutions, her right to extend her jurisdic
tion over the Cherokee country, anil ad
vised a future legislature to exercise this
right—the Indians applied to the Presi
dent. complaining cf the designs ofGeor
gia, and asking the protection of the Fed
eral Government. Now what should the
President have done? Make no reply—
remain perfectly silent, or tell them he
was not at liberty to give any opinion
—not even to form one as to the in
tent of the treaty referred to? Is this
the course of conduct for a President of
this republic to pursue? Would this
have been like Jlndrcw Jackson f Sir, it
would have been at variance with every
act of his life, and every feature of his
character. What then could he have
done other than that he did? Tho In
dians had not been interrupted—there
Itnd been no attempts to drive them from
(heir land—nor was this even threatened;
and the Jaw of Georgia, which the gen
tleman from New-York says will hate
fho effect of compelling them to remove,
had not even been passed. But the Presi
clout, ajtjfctilcU lu uo liw- «• as, In a cfiuiti/l'
the most open frankness, and with n spe
cial regard for the welfare of the Indians,
addressed them in the most affectionate
terms; ho told them they knew him, and
they knew he would not deceive them;
in that peculiar and eloquent language
which they so well understood, he told
them bespoke ‘ with a straight and not
with a forked tongue.” ‘lf you remain
where yon are, (said lie) you cannot es
cape the laws; yon are included within
the bounds oftlie States which have this
right-and it is vain to think of resisting—
if you choose to remain there, you shall bo
protected in the possession of your lands;
but I will not beguile you with the hope
of the protection of this government a
gainst State authority. But ifyouchoose
to remove, I will provide you a country
beyond tho Mississippi, where you may
escape the evils you apprehend—there
you shall be protected—there you may
live and be happy.” And this, sir, is the
language of a despot! this is the style
suited to the court of Henry VIIII this is
the power which is so alarming, that the
gentleman from New-York would prefer
a dictator at once, rather than have a Pre
sident so self-willed and tyrannical! Re
ally, sir, so solemn and impressive was
(he gentleman's manner—so awful and
terrific the picture he drew, that my fears
were highly excited—l was ready to
conclude that the days of this happy
republic were numbered, and my imagi
nation sickened at the contemplation of
liberty expiring in convulsive agonies.—
But, sir. when the alarm bad ceased, and
I had time for a little reflection, i found
that the country had, in tin view of the
gentleman, been brought to ttie verge of
this awful castnstroplic by a little friend
ly and parental advice from the President,
to these children of tho forest, and by a
refusal to array this government against
that of tlie States acting within their
own sphere. But in the glow of ail his
ardour—-anil while sounding these terri
ble alarms and indulging in such mild
terms ns “tyrant,” “despot,” “dictator,”
&c., tho gentleman is considerate enough
to remind us that ids opposition to the
conduct of the President is prompted by
no political opposition—“this is no party
question.” Oh no! "no party question!’’
certainly not. Why tell us this! who
could have thought ofcharging the oppo
sition of that gentleman to the influence
of political or party motives ? lam sure
no member of this committee can be so
uncharitable. But lost there might be
some ungenerous suspicion of that kind,
the gentleman gives us the strongest as
surance of his sincerity, in the anxiety lie
evinces to throw the responsibility of the
President's conduct upon some one else.
’lt was certainly not the suggestion of
his own mind ;” and yet after ranging the
fields ofhis imagination, extensive as they
lire, ho is unable to whom to attribute
Ibis cruel policy. Finally, however, and
without the shallow of pretext, he travels
out cf his way to make, what at first ap
peared, a very insidious attack on the
.Secretary of State. After telling us he
cannot imagine who could have advised
the President in this matter, he express
es the most fervent hope that it was not
the first officer in the cabinet. Really,
sir, at first I thought this was bitter irony;
and that the gentleman’s object was to
render the policy ns odious ns possible,
and then by expressing tho hope that it-
£tt?otifcXc EWHertfsir,
was not advised by the Secretary ofj
State, to make directly the opposite im
pression upon the minds of the commit
tee. But when a gentleman of his stand
ing makes such a solemn averment, we
are bound to believe him. From the re
lations formerly existing between the
Prime Minister and the gentleman from
New York, it might be a matter ofcurious
enquiry how long this extreme solicitude
for the fame and character of the Secreta
ry of Slate has existed. This is a inat
’ ter, however, which it would be highly
indelicate for me to enquire into. 1 can
only congratulate the Secretary on the
invincible champion who has stepped
forward in his defence, and from the zeal
and spirit which has been manifested, the
head of the State Department may feel
perfectly secure from all attacks. If,
however, the gentleman’s knowledge of
the President’s character had been equal
to his anxiety for the Sect clary's reputa
; tion, he might easily have quieted all his
apprehensions. Our present Chief Magis
trate, while he will cheerfully listen to the
opinions and suggestions of his constitu
tional advisers, will not submit to the di
l ructions or dictations of any one; and
i least of all will he ever attempt to shelter
• himself from the responsibilities of his
j measures by palming them on his minis
: tors.
f But to return to the treaty of.Ilolston:
I suppose the guaranty had expressly ix
, tended to the protection of the Italians,
t and to restrictions upon the rights of the
: States, which the United States had no
i power to impose—in other words sup
• pose the provisions of the treaty to have
; been plainly and palpably nnconstitalloii-
I a!: now the advocates of the Indians
. insist that the President has no right to
i notice this unconstitutk nality; lie i« hound
’ to execute thretreaty. From this doctrine,
■ Sir. I humbly beg leave to d -sent. The
i President on coining in.o oh ice, took a
s solemn oath to support the Constitution
,of the United States —a treaty repugnant
1' to this constitution Ims no b c.Png three,
and the enforcement of it by the Presi
-1 dent would, it seems u> me. be a direct
violation of his oath. But the honorable
• gentleman from .New-York contends that
• if there be any difficulty as to the metming
or obligations of a Treaty —at least such
as thefee with the Indians —the President
should refer the matter to ('ongross—that
■ it is our province to ascertain and deb i
mine the extent of these obligations, i
should be very glad to know \x here (,’on -
) gress derive tins power In what part
• of the constitution does the gentleman
i find it? He will search for it in vain. No
i such power exists. Whenever the exe
■ cut’on ofa treaty is confided to the Pi esi
« dent, he is necessarily clothed with the
r power of constructing it; and so long
i as the Executive Chair is tilled by our
present Chief Magistrate, that power
will be exercised. And whenever you
attempt to compel him to adept a con
struction ofa treaty entrusted to his exe
cution, which he believes to lie unconsti
tutional, and then require him to net on
that construction, he will fell yon, ,I No. 1
cannot. If you choose to impeach me,
do so. Drag me to the bar oft ho Senate,
and excuse me before that august tribn
•ml: but I will not go to the bar of my
God, with the damning sin of my con
•n Irlltc us ..ind knoiv ii.frly
violated that great character of ourgov
ernment which Iliad solemnly sworn to
support and defend.”
Let us now Mr. Chairman, examine
the treaty of Holstnn, and see whether
it lie constitutional or not. We have
had that clause of the onstitution, xx hich
reserves to the States, or to the people of
all the powers not delegated to Congress,
so often sounded in our ears, thnt if has
become stale; from frequent repetition it
has lost some of its effect. Vet to the
friends oftStnte rights—to those who xx ish
to see the Slates protected from th-.-m
--cronchment of Federal powers, there is:
no elanse in the Constitution which they
desire to sec preserved more inviolate—
there is none to which they cling xxith
more tenacity. And I presume it wdi
hardly be contended that those rights
which were thus reserved to the States,
were not (hereby as completely secured
against the President and Senate as a- i
gainst Congress. The words are not
that the rights reserved to the states are
secured against the pine nr <ij but
reserved to the Staten or the people.— And it
would be too absurd to say that although
the exercise of certain powers xvere ab
so'utely prohibited to the Federal Gov
ernment, yet they might he exercised by
the President & Senate. The reservation
is to the .States or the people, & then fee
amounts to a prohibition of their excuse
by any authority known to our govern
ment. 'Flic question then recurs, had the
United (Stales a right either by legislation
or Treaty to make this Guarantyf If they
had. I pray lobe informed whence this
right is derived? We have seen already
that every attempt, in forming the articles
ofConfeclerntion and the Constitution, to
confer any power on Congress over the
unappropriated lands in the different
States, lulled; and yet if this guarantee
mean any thing, it produces this very ef
fect. Congress indeed has not done it
could not do if: yet the President and
Semite, and ('herokee Indians have done
it. Toil me not of National Laxv, < r that
this power is n branch of sovereignty.
National Law is not to control the funda
mental laxv of this Union. Our fathers
had but too recently felt the oppression
to which they had been subjected by the
exercise of a bitmry power in the sove
reign of the it-,'tion—they xvere determin
ed to prox ide against the hazard of des
potism in their nexx government; and
therefore guarded by such extreme cau
tion. the | lowers conferred on their public
functionaries. I admit that many of the
powers delegated to the Federal Govern
ment may be, and are, exercised by the
forming of Treaties— most of onr com
mercial regulations and intercourse with
foreign nations are thus arranged and
carried on; hut the power itself is con
ferred in other parts of (he Constitu
tion; this is only the manner in which itis
exercised. The making of a Treaty does
not impose the obligation, unless the poxv
er to make the treaty existed in (he Con
stitution. But let us apply the doctrine
ns contended for by onr opponents, and
test its opeiation. We have already
shewn that Congress cannot dispose of
the territory of a (Stale: and certainly ce
ding it aw aj is the most effectual disposi
tion of it. Now suppose the United States
should make a Treaty with Mexico bv
which they cede half of Louisiana. Ltd
»t be remeiDbercd that there is no inter
'I mediate ground; for if by a Treaty you
' can cede a part of the vacant or unappro
priated territory, you can in like manuei
dispose of the most populous part of a
state. Suppose then half of Louisiana to
be ceded—xvould the (State be bound to
submit to this dismemberment of its terri
tory? Could the inhabitants residing in
the country ceded be thus disfranchised of
their rights as American citizens! Have
the President and Senate the constitu
tional power to make such a cession? for
if they have, flic State and the persons
thus negociated away, would be under
an absolute, constitutional obligation to
acquiesce. Now, where is the gentle
man xx ho would stand up here and advo
■ rate such u doctrine? Sir, the people of
Louisiana would rise in rebellion—their
clamors and remonstrances would reach
you iu peals of thunder—they would re
sist even to blood. Ami yet, absurd as
(his doctrine is, it is the direct and legiti
mate consequence of that which is con
tended for on tins floor. Congress, or the
President & Senate, have .just as much
righi to dispose of half the settled ami or
ganized parts of one of the States, as they
nave to dispose < ft heir x at ant territory. In
■ truth, it was to protect their unaperopria
i ted lands fron tin* power of Congress,
that ot easioned the refusal to give any
power over them.
But, Mr. Chairman, let me present the
■ e :-<-in another aspect. The Indians arid
, their advocates contend that, by a fair
■ construction of the guaranty xvhieh has
> been made by the treaties; they had tiie
- right to erect a sovereign and iud. pend
• eat government, as tiiey have done.
Now, Sir. suppose that, instead of leax
i ing any thing to construction, (lie Treaty
> ot Holston had expressly stipulated that
1 the Cherokecs should have this right,
, and that their independence should be re
- cognized by the United States—Would
i it have been valid! I ask the most zeal
i ous friend of (he Cherokecs, whether
l such a treaty and such a recognition
, xvould have been binding among the
- States within whose chartered limits
1 that governn.ent should have been erea
• toil' And yet what is the difference be
i txx aesi expressly agreeing to the erection
r of » government, and recognizing the
i right to erect one': Sir, allow me top.o
--t "0.-e another question. Doe* any gen-
I t'.-man beiiexethat if nr. article to con
fer on Congress mu a : power had been
i proposed to ila Comention, it would
- have bn: ml; j tea’ Lx cry candid mar.
I will nnliesitat ugly answer. No. And yet
i when thai power is not given—when, if
) it had been asked for, we are confident it
. would have been refused, gentlemen, first
-by h liberal construction of the Constitu
. tion, and then by a no less liberal con
r sanction of the Treaty, bring themselves
■ to the conclusion that the treaty is obli
• gatory, and that under it. the right ti
! erect tliis Cherokee Government exists.
Sir, if the friend* of state rights are not
- alarmed at the danger to vx hi eh such con
structions as these expose us, they will
i not, 1 fear, he aroused until the last rem
-1 mint of these rights are prostrated at the
, footstool of Federal poxx cr.
, But ifihe Cherokecs be indeed an inde
pem'en: i ion. no other power on earth
eanhaxi any right oi soil or sovereignty
xv tli a (no.r limits, and they can dispose
obit a pleasure—tliis is one oi the essen
tial, ii.sepnrnblc attributes of sovereign
i ty. Tins then amounts to a detaching
the • herokee Territory from the State of
Georgia. Their Declaration oflndepen
■ deuce, and especially its acknowledge
ment by the United Stales, as ‘effectually
i destroys all right of Georgia, (so far as
the United States cun effect it,) as our
Declaration of Independence, and its ac
i knowledgement by Great Britain, ile
, sfroyed her right of t< rritory within the
(Stales. Suppose, then, that the United
States were to purchase this territory
from the Indian government, to whom
would it belong? livery one will respond,
to Georgia. But by xvliat title? Her
original right is gone, and she would
have to rely upon the right by the treaty.
But tliis could not give her the territory—
this government could not by treaty ac
quire territory and mid it to one of the
states. You could not. ifyou were to ac
quire New Brunsxxiek, annex it to Maine
—simply because no such power is given
by the Constitution. Vet yon must exer
cise just -ach a power, if alter yielding to
tiie ! rctf so a- m i up by ihc t herokee--
you eubseqmii v obtain 'their country,
on:’: give It up to Georgia.
But i will not shev .but this Govern
ment nev< i lm\e regarded ih«- Cherokecs
as sovereign aui independent. To.
United States Conn exercise jurisdiction
over the t b i.noe Nation, ilov. cm
yon enforce your laws over on independ
ent country; V\ hut authority have yoi
to do so?—the right to regulate commerce:
\ ou have the same right as regards Eng
land or France, but could you. under this
|a.xver, (even by their consent.) lake cog
’.izunee oferimescommitted within those
Kingdoms? Gan the consent of a foreign
government clothe yon with n power,
which the Constitution has not given
you? Sir. this doctrine is so unreasona
ble, that itis only necessary to state it to
ex (>ose its absurdity. Shall Ibe told
that this powerto punish forerimes com
mitted in the Cherokee nation, is under
tin law of (he United States to regulate
trade and intercourse with the Indian
tribes! That very law was passed under
the power to regulate commerce—this is
manifest from the title ofthe act. But p. ,
very slight examination of these laws xx ill
show that the General Government, as
is so frequently the case, transcended its
powers. The first statute for this pur
pose was in 171 M) and was to continue in
force two years. Similar statutes were
passed in ’l)3, '})(», ’O9, and and in
every successive act, the United (Mates en
large (hejurisdiction oftheir courts: there
has, in these laws, been u gradual and
successive assumption of power by the
United States—and it w.-s this assump
tion ol power by these laws, that pro
duced the protest and remonstrance of
our Legislature which have been laid
on our tallies.
But the United (Mates, as though dis
trusting their right to the jurisdiction over
the Indian country within the limits oi
the states, did on one occasion evince a
just sense of their real powers. In the
net of 1)3, regulating trade and inter
course with the Indian tribes, it is prox i
ded that "nothing contained in the act
shall be construed so as to prevent any
trade or intercourse with Indians living
on lands surrounded by settlements of
J the citizens of the U. (States, and being
j icithin thejwrisdictim nr any of fa inih'itfunl
tales.'” 15y the subsequent acts, however,
I his exception is qualified so as to exclude
.heir operation on trade “within the or
dinary jurisdiction of the States.” What
was intended by “ordinary jurisdiction,”
we do not learn from the statute; nor is it
material to enquire; it is sufficient for my
purpose that mere is in the words ofthese
statutes a direct recognition of the doc
trine that Indiana surrounded by settle
ments of the whites in the States, ure
within the jurisdiction of those States,
and it is so far respected that Congress
restrained their laws from any operation
which might effect that jurisdiction.
The last of these Intercourse Laws, a«
they are called, and the one now in force,
was passed 3 Oth March. 1802; and the com
pact between the United States and
Georgia, by which the vnst territory
which now forms the States of Mississippi
and Alabama was ceded to the United
States, was executed on 25th April, 1802.
To one clause of that compact 1 beg
the attention of this Committee. It is in
these words: “they (the Unit'd Slates)
cede to the State of Georgia whatever
claim, right, or title, theij may hate to the jur
isdiction or soil of any lands lying within the
United States, and out of the proper boun
daries of any other State, aid situated
South ofthe Southern boundaries of the
States of Tennessee, .North Carolina, and
South Carolina, and East of the bounda
ry' line nereiii above described as the
Eastern boundary of the Territory ceded
by Georgia to the United States.” Sir,
I pause here, and ask the Committee to
consider the import ofthese words.—
Can language he plainer? Gentleman
may read as many moral lessons on
the solemn obligations of treaties as they
please—they may declaim loudly about
the plighted faith ofthe nation; but when
has this government ever entered into a
more solemn and binding engagement
Iran this! an engagement for w dch
Georgia gave you a most enormous con
sideration. Bir, there is no avaling the
force of this agreement —turn which way
you will, it stares you in the face—even
construction, the dernier resort, furnishes
no pretext or subterfuge. Os your right
to enter into the obligation there is no
doubt—and, on your part, vast benefits
! ~ Vv- already been, aiid more w ill be, re
alized. However you may excuse your
selves for your delay in extinguishing the
hind title to the lands, you have in direct
At positive terms relinquished all right of
jurisdiction, and that to Georgia. When
cver, then, you attempt to exercise any
jurisdiction within the Cherokee nation
other than by the Federal Constitution
you may exercise in the States generally,
and whenever you attempt to interfere
with Georgia, in her exercise of jurisdic
tion, you arc guilty of a plain, direct, and
inexcusable violation of your solemn en
gagement.
And here, Mr. Chairman, I might rest
this question, with the most perfect confi
dence that so long as this compact re
mains on our statute book, and so long as
moral obligation is acknowledged, the
>iate of Georgia is secure in her rights,
at leusi from any interruption by this go
vernment. Hut I must'return again to
this subject of jurisdiction, as claimed un
der the Intercourse Laws, and particu
larly the inconsistency of this jurisdic
tion, with the independence of the Che
rokee nation. By these laws certain
crimes ure punishable in the United States
Courts. But these Courts have no jur s
dictinn of cases arising without the States
and Territories, (except admiralty caus
es.) and the Constitution requires the of
fender to be tried in the Districts or stales
where the offence is committed. When
a crime is committed in that part of the
( herokee nation claimed to he within the
limits of Georgia, where is it triable?—
Every lawyer will tell you, at once, in
Georgia. 'Try offe nces in Georgia which
were committed in an independent State!
Hut if may be said that this is provided
for by the Treaties with the Chcrokecs,
as well as by the Intercourse Law. Can
a Treaty. I again ask, extend the juris
diction of the Courts beyond the limits
prescribed by the Constitution? Could
the United States, by a Treaty with Al
giers, obtain jurisdiction c f offer cos com
mitted there? Dr, could (he lb States,
by treaty with the Chcrokecs, have per
sons ccmmitting crimes in that nation
h ied ■<' v u ginia ? 'This w ould be a sfretch
i the treaty-making power which no
one would defend—and yet it is precise
ly the doctrine contended for.
Again: ( ongress has the power to es
tablish Post Offices and Post Hoads—yet
it w ili not he pretended that you can ex
ert this power only in the United States
mid their territories. But you have esta
blished divers Post Reads through the
( herokee nation, and this (with the ex
ception of a road from Knoxville to the
Mississippi) without even a treaty with
the Chcrokecs. Nay, further, sir: If an
Indian were to interfere nnd stop the mail,
in the nation, he is punishable by our law!
An instance of this interference has re
cently occurred in the Creek nation. Tns
kina, an Indian Chief, did stop the mail;
and what has been the consequence ?
He has been arrested, and is now under
bonds to appearand answer to the charge
at the District Court of Alabama, within
1li«* limits of which, though in the country
claimed and inhabited by the Creeks,
the crime was committed.* And will
any lawyer, who values his reputation,
appear before that Court, anil plead to its
jurisdiction, because the crime was not
committed in the Stale cl Alabama, or
defend the a reused ou the ground that
the United States have no rightto run the
mail through the Indian country ? As
to Post Offices. I would not sport with the
good sense of the Committee by entering
into an argument to show that Congress
cannot establish them in foreign coun
tries. This 100 could not be done even
by a treaty—but, if it could, we have no
treaty with the Chcrokecs authorizing the
establishment of Post Offices in fheir na
tion; yet it has been done, and by refer
ing to the list of Post offices, published
some time since, I find a Post Office called
•Head of Coosa,” and John Ross, Post
.Master. Yes, sir, here is his Excellency,
the supreme or principal ChicJ of all the Chero-
Icccs, holding this subordinate station un
der our government!—a fine commenta
ry on the independence of that nation.—
I have presented these facts to show that
from the establishment of our indepen
dence to this time the Cherokees have
never been considered by the Federal Go
vernment ns a sovereign people. It is
not only a new.huta perfectly absurd idea.
•This Chi«-f Tuskinn, has been since trieil before {hi
Djta-tn Crnrt of .Malum*, wnvleWlnaif
letter from Upson county, dated
\Ve have just in the neighborhood
where 1 reside, experienced and are stiii
experiencing the most fatal drought I P v<
o?liiy Ct t 0 lllive witnessed, except th^
Hancock Advertiser, August oj
the late gale.
The opinion we gave in our last of.},
loss that would he sustained in the cron or
Sea Island Cotton remains unchanged to
ad vices since received. The crops <
Hutchinson’s Island, opposite (he ritv
under dry culture, are nearly ruined b ’
the breaking ofthe banks—to the extern
probably of two thirds. At sea the ca u
is described by those who experienced it
to have been unusually violent. Accounts
of a number of disasters will bo found U1)
der our marine head.— Savannah GW-,, ‘
August til. & ar ‘
St. Augustine, August 19.
The Storm. —On Saturday nixrht, th e
wind commenced blowing from V r
and moderately increased until Sunday
afternoon, when it increased to a gale
and continued blow ing with tremendous
force until lute in the night, when it chanir.
ed IV. W. and West. Hart the wind con!
tinned for an hour or tw o longer, it is -, r o!
halile the damage done to this city would
have been much greater than it is, as the
tide must have reached to several parts of
it, and caused a pretty general destruction
But we are thankful that no greater
damage has been done. The Orange
Trees have suffered most severely ; and
the probable loss of the crop, from wlmt
wc have seen and heard, is perhaps one
third; very serious for a short crop
Many fences were blown down; and we
understand that much injury ha, been
sustained on the plantations in the coun
try, hut the particulars and probable a
mount, wo have not learned.— Hera hi
-
THE RAIL ROAD.
At ainectingof the Stockholders in the
South-Carolina Canal (j- hail Hoad Company,
hold yesterday, the Committee appoint
ed to obtain additional subscriptions to
make up the capital of Six Hundred
Thousand Dollars, reported that 504
„ Shares only were wanting to ecnv a-i t .
the subscription. Agentlenian then stop
ped forward, and said he would e uu
of any number, to take the balance ol the
stock unsubscribed. Other gmflenira
1 joined him; the subscriptions were n;:;:K
; and the books immediately closed. Wc
learn that the company who took the ha
lance ofthe stock, will rcceh e associates
on or before to-morrow, after which time
they will hold in their own right the
shares they have subscribed, it is with
much pleasure we state that the entire
stock ofthe Company, necessary to com
’ pletcthe Hail Hoad from this city to Ham
' burg, is now subscribed, and that the
: work will be prosecuted with igour.
1 Charleston Courier. August 30.
, —SCO
ATROCIOUS MURDER.
W t are informed by the New-Orleans
Bi t . that an atrocious murder nas perpe
trated in that city on the Oth inst. on the
person of Mrs. Crevon, a widow lady of
1 advanced age. She was hilled in her
hod, by eleven strokes of hatchet and a
knilo, on her head, breast and stomach.
It is supposed the murderer had secreted
himself in the house, at an early hour, as
no noise was heard by two young ladies
who slept in an adjoining apartment. A
bunch of keys was taken from under her
pillow, by means of which a purse con
taining a few hundred dollars in specie
was obtained. No trace of (he perpe
trator had been discovered.
Another murder was committed (lie
same evening, upon the person of.l. T
Lewis, by I*. Rider, who hud hecuurrctt
<«!.
WEST INDIA TRADE
The news that the AVcst-India port,'
are to be opened to (he commerce of the
, United States, in September, is thus sta
ted by the Portland Daily Courier.
Interesting Commercial A’crvs. —Wc leant
from William Vance, Esq. who left East
port ft r this place oa Sunday last, that
on the preceding day, news arrived tlici"
from St. Andrews and St. Johns, onsw h
authority as to obtain entire credit, that
the British West India ports- were lour
opened to the United States in Srplonlfr,
under certain limitations end restrictions.
The fact is said to have been communi
rated by letters from Judge Chipmar
Provincial Agent in Europe, to 3/r. John
son. merchant at St. Johns. The same
news was received by a commercialhouse
at St. Andrews from a respectable com
mercial house in London. It is added
that Judge Chipman stated in his letter
that he had been assured by the IJritish
Minister that the interest of the British
Northern and Eastern Provinces would
he duly protected. The character ot the
restrictions which are to continue on the
trade is not given; hut that the ports are
to be opened in some shape, wc tlumi
there is hut little doubt.
TO KENT
From tho first October Ncrt.
n_. n A convenient nVELLI-Vl
HOUSE, on Melntosb-Strce*.
• ■■■llls at present occupied by JRr
JlgiK Win. Wright.
ALSO,
A complete set of FURNITURE, be
longing to the above house, suitable fora
genteel family.
(C/ 5 * For terms, apply at the Chropiele
and Advertiser Office.
Augusts 2t 92
\u:nt,
From the Ist of October next,
The Brick House, fern ntim
her of years occupied 'J
tn«QU Messrs. James M. Carter A
jlMAffl Co. as a Drug store, and faiw;
ly residence—For terms, apply toUr. • ■
Anthony.
ELIZABETH GORDON
July 17 tOl _
Mto rent, .
From the Ist October next, tn
Grocery Store, No. 33!), a g° 0 ‘
stand for Business. Apply to
BRIDGES & GIBFON
June«B ff 70