Newspaper Page Text
. ♦
BY CA:.iAK & R.l«fiAX;), STATE MI. STATUS HUNTERS.
-—1—T«— — niTi y:.T.trtnt;i;inJVi;irw. if.w.i.,' avK^. -:
r&
MII.LKD<*EVll<I.E, TlIUSitfDAY, OCiOiiKE G, 1831.
Tin: gkosigia Jonn.vL
Is publith .ItwiiM* II ivirh .luiinc U*«- ** 01. ol «»*•• L«
and wookly*forth»; nouii.mt. rui iln- >■ «r m U r ( . j.crol
and Hancock -n I'HllKH DOLL Alls j.. i annum
vnnce,ov K*H : a lit lla 1
The Paper wiUuot In- mmii la any «»-»•* •.
the mil wr it plion Snowy is paiitJn mlvnncr
cure given
ol iheyc
nil not ol' tin- State, until
iiilUiucloiy refer*
Groceries and Hfmhvnrc.
111', siili-ci-.il i - |i, m |, ■ j,, infumi thi'lr
!.’li’i ".'■ I’ u1, -■ < i 1 ■ i >i II v ■ I .n iln-> I.-..-
kknimiitk .\"\i \i kiVi. "ii .,,1, .'.J!!”
ik I.. nNe\v-Y>irk, I'hllndeljdiir.,
Adv. rtisemeuts inv rtrd at the usual rim s.
CT* N. It. S.il.-s ..i LAND, l*y Vilininoirainr*, Lxerutnrs,
Gunrdiaif-, are jvqnli* ij, M Uiw. i.»Le held • u tJo- Ijj-m Tuipji.y
in the tnnntn, between the hour* ol t* >tL the lou-noon and three
In the afternoon, at tin t ,nrt-li..u ; e m the eount> in wlilih
propel ty i» situate.— SoUci; «>l ties, sale* i > *t <• t-ttiil i
puluir gt/elte *<1 VI \ HA\
they are r, r.
iloslon, a general n-...,
(irdi cri.-.- mi.I I liifihyorc.
W hirJi ll»f y will m;H f I-iv. for (•Ji/isli, or nfrpruvctlpaper
A. B. DAWSON,
& TTORNHY rit l. nv—-Hus settle* 111
- a Mnitlirrllo, Cicorph., nu«l \%l!i praoticr^n th« tnliniat:
Hi)'PCfiljt-S & HOLT,
YWil.l. contimn; thi: ptnetice ’of Low in
* V en-phitimrsliip in nil thee.Mini’ •> m the ( hall il lire
Sale, ot N !•’.<* 10
Tin •day ol the "i.
nlace >1 bublU *1
ttry.o
fit st
OS Hemp a
I'■<» Ouilf Hale It..i
lyo:» lhs. nagging ’I
II the rtbllllty
• the I
lo.nl the
—Tim .uli i'rlliBis" Imvo itss.iciulcii
A <lifui.f>lv..a (.lx- n..Tin ilin r. m-ii-, . i'ii,.- I,n«. un.n-r Hie
I "I ivki.min .v sum: IM.1I T-. , W,|, ; .... «...
• ur-li sale.*
Notice for the sale *»l IVr-iimil Prniwrt
manner, KOK l’V rfjavs pievm.h« to the <!
Notire to the D. lu ii*.tndCr. Iitois ol
ini t*’tiRTV
Notice th.ll ippl'n'iti • ' will I"- made (.
for I • iwto -lUi AN'D. must he ) ’ *
JNen Fire Proof WarV-Elouse,'
A L'lirsTA.
^13^ 111" it ti«!«*rsi tender flip piridin tlnir
A ;,nuj;u WAiNTI'U).
I\i \ \ ol' htctuly liaUits and moral cK»
xSa melt. r. w I'll can «,„„«• rr-tvi,. nen. 1*M to lithe ehni-eof
WILLI S.M NIUVKRS, Sr.
'he Georgia Courier will Insert I lie ah »\t* <>nee n mom
r won tits, uud loro ant tin* account to h‘»ek MtU« jjir ppy ■
>VM. SIIIYKRS, *•
FOB VAt.l’i,
ACRl'iS nf |'iw.t and second qnn*
. , N • > I.. • . II Hits .mi the Oli-.ipli t, 3
theCnnrl ol Otdinary
iiliU'lie.l for POI I! .Mo.N l lis.
VtH'l* ntgv ani CoHiiiiisxjoi] Huaiim*
in all Us hrnee’u l Tl.cmre nmv . re. tine a ( ••nn.odibu*
C KkViUAL 1J.WK OT GKOIIG1A.
... Mli.LKDGKN IU.P., In.y S.MhJl
TUI USlJAAr Id tin* Act of llic (oiiural!
joiin iit»DM:*t r.
0*1'1 (** K.-—|T*f lit? owner ol iln* 1« llowinjr
I' M tr.ii 1 1s of l.na.l. H ititallon Jhe *uhscri»»er, livlnc on ( v-
pri - t .veil, inT, liai, c. U.»ty,8J mile* Icon llaritoid, |te ss ill
l.rdn'eruda I i r p. I e far the u,f. vi?: L*>ls No ^DB, mul
xi, Hillyi,isilhe Mth »R tnct , t oi«t Wilkin-, n n .xv , U*l.air
cuoitlx. ASH 1.1. V CAWTlWN.
'1 . Bhin rinmty. Srr t 1— mtl.lnn
I’ •r'lin* iitte.'e'ied In tin
eu Monthly, Will lind ihittn
paper in every luouili.
ti'i'unfti i\mulo Academy.
rjp 111:', lost Session of lliis Iustitation \\\
nnim-nre nil the*<l M« nday *.f Oct*'
tjjn pr.icpcdi of their sbJo to ho paid into the Trons-
ury. The above is nu analysis of an much of the
law ns is necessary for our present purpose. Tho’
the caption is a ^eftrrnl one, and applies to oil per
sons, yet it is contended tliat it refers only to tres
passers, nnd that ,is the word trespass is a legal and
technical term, it must be received according to its
le^nl meaning. “ Tresspass (soys Blnckstone,*) as
relates' to land, signifies no more than an entry oir
nnoifVor man’s ground without n lawful authority
and doing some damage, however inconsiderable,
to his real property.** And it matters not whether
tho person in possession is “ landlord or tenant,”
j whether he has an absolute or qualified proper
ty” in tho premises, either Jins his right of action
against his trespasser, consequently no man can be
a treaprfbser Jipon land of which ho has the uso
and ppssession or which belongs to him absolutely
or for a limited time. Then applying this doctrine,
it is said an Indian cannot be a trespasser upon
lands of which it is acknowledged, /»?/ treaijp he
bnsthe hill, hoe and undisturbed possession.
Again} it is contended that in aid of the above
principle the preamble of the law is very strong if
not conclusive. It states tlmt great waste have
been committed bv the trespasses and intrusions
of whom? Not the Indians — hut numberless citi
zens of this ami otlier States.” Now Indiana are
not citizens and never lyive beep so considered.
The nreitmhlo nrocooilft tn declare, “for remoi
Tiro preamble proc'Cft’A to declare, “ for remedy
whereof*—What mischief it to be remedied J—-
The trespasses oud intrusions of numberless citi
zens of this nnd other Stales upon the mines.*-—
Then comes the enacting clause which slat* s “for
the better securing said inii.es from trespass, at!
person* guilty of digging gold shall incur the n-
t< ire said penalty, “ unless qulhoriietl by law” to dig.
Now Imre is room to contend again, that it was
tnspass in its legal sense, the* Legislature inten
ded to punish, and that as it was wt 11 known no
ono could by any possibility* according to existing
laws, bo “ authorized by law” to dig for gold but
the Indians, tjiey having the constant uud uniform
late of trealigs tus well as the intercourse law ol
t he United States to protect them in the possession
of their encoded lands, tin* ubwve expression was
intended as a saving in their be hull*. It lias beet
urgciiand sortie facts stated, which occurred at tin
passage of tho law, to explain the reason of the
above priwiso, hut I presume every one knows that
f dirts of justice cannot travel cut of the law for
any explanation ; *>f its meaning ; it would goto
«•. tahhsli tin* moiwtrous practice of ascertaining
the sense of the 1 legislature by oral testimony,
and thereby place the laws ut’tlig land in the most
dubious and iluctuuting condition.
Again it is asked, if the* above section was in
tended to ombrace * very person w ho should dig
gold, where was the necessity 6f the 4th section
which imposes the same penalty upon any person
who should employ a white man, Indian, negro or
mulatto to dig gold ? If it is contended that these
four descriptions of persons were excepted from
the penalty of the third section because the white
man alluded to was one w ho should not be a citi
zen of this or any other Slate, but who claimed
flic* rights of nil Indian as a descendant, and there
fore for greater particularity common to tho law,
was described us a white man. That to employ
him or the Indian should be a crime in the employ
er, tin* if it. was criminal in them to dig gold, no one
cun or will believe they would sulfur themselves
to be employed in u business that would vend them
to the Penitentiary. And this idea is much
• trem*lliened by the lact tlmt flieru is an alter pro
vision which * x<-nipiM shuns from Penitentiary,
confinement pm! subjects them to confiscation, as,
nn additional puniamiuUit m the employer.
These are ihe doubt thrown around this law,
and the Uourt is culled upon to remember the rule
of construction t** be- found in the Lughsh law,
which in our law, and which if it ever ex'sttd in
uny country, ought tx> exist in this boasted land ot
liberty,* viz : “ It was one of the laws of the twelv
tables of Home, that w henever there was a que«
lion between liberty nnd .-lavery, the presumption
should bo on the side of liberty. This oxcellrnt
principle our law has adopted'in the construction
of pniml statutes, tor whenever any ambigirity aris
es in a statute introducing a neiv vuuiltu or punish
ment, the decision shall be on tue aide of lenity
and mercy: or in favor of right and liberty : or, in
other w ords, the decision shall be according to the
strict letter it; favor of the subject. .And thougl
the Judges in such cases may trequcntly ruiso and
solve ditlioultirs contrary to the intention of the
Legislature, yet no further inconvehicnce cun re
sult, thu.li that the law remains as it was before the
statute. And it is more consonant to the princi
ples of liberty, that the Judge should acquit whom
tho Legislator intended to punish, than that lie
JV1 . should punish whom tiro Legislator intended to
biit_aliach'd t i the rovnl;/ nf Gwir-ntt^fur the iliscliar^i: with impmutv.” 1 do believe it win the
/■ir/uiw of riril'nnd criml^d jiirwdirli,,,,. intention of :tli" Legislature to Bring-the Indians
*' • ~ within the penalty of tlic law, but I candidly own
I arrive at, this belief more from my knowledge of
the history of its passage, than from the law itself,
and that to one entirely unacquainted with that his
tory there would be much ambiguity in its true ob-
jeet. . ' .
Believing then as l cM, nnd that tho Legislature
reason for that right has almost if not entire!/ cut'
ed ? Will the State urge, after greatly advancing
in science and civilization, and what is still better,
in the knowledge of just and equal lawa, that by
reason of its crowded population it is unable to'
“subsist and multiply** without this land—that
these “ rude tribes have not advanced from tho
hunter state** ami usurp more territory than it a#-
cetsnry for their subsistence, or are not suflVtitntfy
confined within “narrow limits?*’
This court does not consider this law to be as'
act of force, but is founded, no datibt, in what tbt
Legislature honestly believed to be a right tcqaL
reel, somewhere between the first discovery ot tha
country smMhe passage of the act, either in th«
force and effect of the laws of Great Britain, over
that people from whom we obtained the country,-
or in our own laws, treaties and compacts, sinew
its acquisition. It is then under this View we nar
row down the consideration of the question.
And first, if the Indians have a title to eztin*'
guisb, what is that title ?. I shall consider th#
question under a two-tbld aspect. 1st. What part
or portion of the land have they a right to enjoy
under their title. ?
2d. What is tlio nature und duration of their*
title ?
An idea prevails that the mines nnd mineral* of
n country ore separate and distinct from the inter
est of the land, und that the former always belong
to the sovereign. Now nothing is more errone
ous, and this mistake has occasioned all the diffi
culty. I candidly own that I labored under it my»
self and granted an Injunction with a view to set
tle Hie question, but when I enme-to examine the
subject, I found nothing to support snen an idea: :
On the contrary I found every thing which was cal
culated to satisfy me I was wrong, l^ot desiring
ray own views, bv any means, to -be considered aM
authority, I shall tqn*ak whenever 1 can in the lan
guage of tlia law, as given to iis by the best* arttf
most approved writers. Justice Kent, therefore*
suya, “it is a fundamental principle in tin* Knfelisb
law, derived from the maxims of the feudul ten
ure?, that the King wue the original proprietor-of’
all the land in the kingdom, ami the true and only
source of title. (‘J Black’s. Corn. 51, 5B, 8(>, 105.—
lu this country we have adopted the some princi
ple, and applied it to our repulieah government \
and it is a yeti led and fundamental doctrine with
us, that all valid individual title to land Tvithin the
United States, is derived from the grant, of our
own local governments, or from tlint of the United-
•States, or from the crown, or royal chartered gov
ernments established here prior tn the revolution.^
•t Kent's fWi.B70 awl the authorities there cited*
Now what is land ? “In iu legal signification,
(nays Coke and Ulurkatoiie,) land hath an indefin
ite extent upward* as well os downwards. Up
wards, to “ the sky,” is the maxim of the law,
urn! therefore no man may erect uny building,or
the like, to overhang another’s land; and, down- .
wards, whatever is in a direct line, between the
surface of any bind and the centre of the earth be
longs to the owner of the surface, as is every dayV
experience in the mining countries. So that tho
word “hind” includ«H not only the face of tho
oath, but every thing under it or ovec. it. And
therefore, if a man grants njl his land?, he grants
thereby, all his mines ofmelul and other fossils, hie-
woods, his waters, and his houses* ua well 'his-
fields and meadows. 1 * % Black’d. Ifr. . *
TI!K .STATU vs. CANA TOO,
A (JJIEKOKLK INDIAN.
Committed to jail upon a charge of digging gold in
that pari of the Vheroku N ation not as yet ceded
By the foregoing doctrine it will appedr that tho'
Stale as the “ original'proprietor 1 *of all the lands,
Id not only all trie mints nnd minerals,hat every
thing else that is included in the term land, 'Ori
ginally they have never been sepuiated any more
than the no. iis vint waters have been separated
from the soil, tunl ! defy the production-’of any au
thority to prove tbr contrary. But. whenever the
Crown granted its lands, if it t hose to make a ret-'
ervatifcn of the mines and minendy upon the face
of the grant, it had a right to dw so. and from that
time they became separate and distinct, am! never
beforrt. And all ihe mines and miiu rais now held
by the King of Great Britain, separate from the
lands, is by virtue of such reservation at the time
of granting his land. This is tha case with re
gard to some uf the lead mines of the United
Stut* y, and this w as attempted by an act of Geor
gia in lr*J5, but meeting the decided dis&pproba-'
lion of the people it was shortly repealed. I have
no hesitation in saying tlmt the State holds just as
good a title to the Indian binds as it does to their
mines and minerals; that it is by virtue of the for
mer it has any right at nil to the latter ; they are
inseparable. If they were distinct rights while
N. Lite .V Chun
by ■»!» W
Also ' •!' of III
Coles’Sarg! .1
AbercrouibL' >"
M irllneC* \J.<
G.Hintin'' «'«»'>-
f tlij^Tuiivtl
... . N.» V ..,i 1. HP* Il.-nrj
■•/ ■> |M.'. m|”V ,: r . t,-. ...
.-••Urij i'.vi'-i"''' 1 ■" limn. I I \i. r. y. R. -.
> : .«! P'“V 'I. .-'I, . I'lii-MotlLn .1 111.- r.'.i.tj for i
l llli Nil. ol tlx
A'l.l 1,7(11 N
All tlltrA"(e
Nil VIA lost ^
ArhC:li lubscviptio'
npr»|
:-ter of l lemy l>roughtim.
ISq. tV.J’/onlhe l*n -t nl >intc
(locution. Ily H. llrou.
Nortli-t litem iV Nortli/fru Iloiinibi;
I III' V| -i> lh» KiiiL- ofrti- N ■ijii-rl.i ui .
At Dr. (rrec.n'ti Dnt" St fire
l on A WAT Fill nmUC \ IlliO.X A’lT.I)
xi i.i(y;u> M
I5JL 1 K.NLLL’S KKIM)K rj’K,
ffuituli rfrii JhUr/nr, ami l*ria Curnut.
Ill’ lii>? veur of this publienrum Imviiig
for the Xofth .hnnirun I'criitn in (ir.or"iu.
. . |,. 1' 1 ' ■ i hot' (<• ijrc
’r vui \(i ~j>i Tn
^.^, r HO Ims n-eeiiilv comjd(‘ted Iris studit s :
, :
< ■ w ..a.'.
mV.- »••«. ui o’Limux^X 1 -i>oii'AT»*'tir, wiit'' 1 hi J
'*i l”(!int«‘,' IM*. ''l l'.i
■ , 'ji
‘JO Dollurs Hetvartl.
'LV\ from Kiftoiiion, nlnuit the|
JEW l*t . \ * • ii I. t i 'l - Iflitfu I-V 1 V t Ik- ... 1
MMiY. . W f LI • I. IM.-V4.rv. , Hit t , ■ ... j
1*1.0 pvi mer was brought up by Habeas Cor
pit.:, anti his disc hare'■ movud for upon three
ids. 1st. Defect ol commitment, 2d. There
10 law making the offence criminal; nridjdd.
If there was, it was contrary to-existing tjmities.
and tluTcfure contrary to the Constitution of tin?
United States.
There is no force in the first object inn, and con
sequently it needs no consideration, in the 2d.
tlimCourl odmils there is gome room to doubt.-—
And Iilmo it will take occasion fo say, that, ns this
i n very important, question, involving lights ol
the highest character, both in relation to the State
and the Indians, nnd its there should exist the ut-
iii >t harmony uetwt rntho Legirlative and Judi
ciary branches of government, both aiming to dis
charge,, with fidelity, the high obligation* commit-
t d to their trust, a1:d .'eking to accompli-h a
common idiject. the welfare of tho community, it
will bo strictly proper and evince a becoming res
pect for the Legislature, for the Court to refer the
not hack to that body with its views candidly ex-
presjjpd, mi both of tho last mentioned points, with
a hope that such a course may‘prevent any fulurt
collision. And this is considered the more dis-
i reet and necessary^ds 4bis ease, under its pr
out arrangement, i« not of sucli pressing urgency
as to re (j inn-* a hasty decision.
Upon the 2d ground then it will be necessary to
hrin. r the act of the last Legislature into view.—
i’hrt Hubstunce ol, its caption b* “to'take posses
sum of the mines vvitiun tjiO Cherokee nation, and
topuuish any. person or p- *.: uu V lio niuy he found
'parsing upofi said mifu s.V
I’lie preamble ot the law nssnits that the mine
f right the property ol’ Georgia,” and slat
th f
tri Ifli
n I cim
hern committed hy’tJn
us of miriiherless citizens of
iii\lig-giiig, taking and
uTitil a as of. gold from said
'ft >f, Be it enacted, &.c.”-
e | i si c. nutlu.ri- < > fix* (invrruor to take p<
■sum of the mines and to employ u force to pro-
t them “Iroj^all furthertnspns:;”
dy wh
file 2d sec. appropriates a certain Hui>i«pf inon-1 the p-
irry'into elfrci the f >regoiiig secuon, nmljasiig:
securing
the 5d
! 1 hat “ for the bette
has perhaps not given tho subject that full and de
liberate investigation which belongs to Coiuts ol
justice, and whn hBieir supposed knowledge oftlie
Constitution, laws and treaties of the land, and the
constant and familiar use of legal principles in ex
pounding the same, ennbl'-s them tu\l)eslow on
such questions, I will proceed to present my opin
ion on the Bd ground for the luturo consideration
of tin? Legislature.
In the beginning of this investigation,! laydown
the following principle, that there never have been
but two ways of acquiring Indian lands,— by fora
and by purchase. I add, history does not furnish a
single instance where one footed’ Indian lands has
ever been taken hi force, by the United States,
especially by Georgia, and this redounds greatly
to the credit of the settlers of Ame’ricn, for N ut
tel, the best writer on natural law, ( bserves, “ that
tho cultivation of the Tmil was nu obligation imp- s-
ed by nature up*«n mankind, and that the human
rneg could not well sub -. -t, or greatly i. nltiply, it
rudo tribes, which had not advanced from Ilk? htm :
ter state, m iyAeiilitled to claim and retain all the
boundless fore its through which they may wander.
If such people will mmrp more territory than they^
c;in subdue and cull iv yte, tlmy have no right to
complain if a nation of cultivators puts in a claim
for a part.” —B Kent’s Coin. •112 and Vat. I. b.
see .HI. ,
Vattel further ndds, “people havp not. then ije-
\Hit 'il from tlirt views of nature in confining the
Indians within narrow linJts,” hut praises ihe mod
eration of the American settlers tor purchasing
from the Indians what tlmy bad u right to take
by force. Ail that the fir t discoverers ever claim
ed was the right of empire, und tho ultimata right
J of dominion over tho Territory which they took
ssion of in right of their sovereign, and
t all other nations this right was rigidly
nforctnl.
confoiiiing four
VI f VlVHI'H •;
l.li MLM> fl I
ANN li. LVOS. .1
This.Yiglit of empire or of govornrnenl lihs been
nihy of digging tor//old, -dver or | fairly deduced info .the State of Georgia, and I
hull in ko from consider that question ns ht rest, 'flic right of do
main or soil is also in Georgia, but subject to a
claim or title of tlie Indians which must be extin
gfiislied in some w.1A Or other before Georgia's ab-
solutoTight will nc(?ruc. T*lio question is, how is
this to be extin niisliod ? Is it tu be by force or by
purchase: If by force, is the Court to under
stand that the law of tlm last Legislature is inten
ded to effect that purpose ? Is it to understand
Hint tbefcjtute renounced the policy pursued by her
sell', her si/tor States am] the United Slates, I’o
the la<t three eontmies, and throws # her^eif ujk
JOHN SWINVEY.
A.'lJ. V\n
80d" shftll b
oHior metal upon fihid mines,
• r cari-y nwav any gojd, silver or oilier metal friun
nnv oftlie said uifno.vio aoHiurintd by law, he,
b!:** t x>r iliey skull b • puilty of-n misdenutanor, and
epofi conviction thereof, shall he sentenced to hard
’ -hot in the Penitentiary for. and during tho term of
four year#.”
Tho 4th and 5th st-e, Infii-’ts a like punishment
upon uny person wh-v “ shall,employ any teftite man,
Indian, oegrra, or mrlaUo to di;r or carry away any
g ih’b “nu profid* that tfic nct is not to ho so con
strued as to rAnfmc n aIhvo in tli • Peiutyntiarv. .
TluiOtii arc. confiscated all siuves and other pro
perty employed in trespassing on said mines, nnd
tho land is in the possession of the Indians they
'would remain so after the 8lute acquires the lend
from the Indians, for there in nothing in that act
that unites them, end e consequence would be,
when she granted out her lands to her citizens, the
mines and minerals would not pass, even though*
lie mode no reservation ill the grant, and Ibis we
nil know is not the cuse.
I have loohnd in vain for any historical fact, io'
relation to the discovery and settlement of Amer
ica, for uny reservation of the mines and minerals
to the sovereign, separate nnd apart from the terri
tory itself; indeed there could be no reason for"
such a distinction, for 09 before observed, the whole
mpire and domarn belonged to the discoverer.—-
.No Charter, Proclamation, law or public document,,
contains any mention ol'siiohrobervTvtion. I there
fore conclude that whatever right the Indians hold
t'i their land, they hold the same light to every
MnfTg which falls within Its legal definition, and
this brings us to consider, secondly, the nature und
duration of their title.
In considering this head, I shall present three*
views of the subject.
Lt. In what manner their title was respected by
Great lkituin, the discovering 1 nation, and from
whom Georgia obtained the country.
2d. In what manner Georgia has respected it
•duee its aquisitioii.
And Bd. 3low it bns been respected by the
Courts of Justice.
1>». We have already <!iown that the discover
ing nation had n right to take by force « pmi of the
country, such us would strictly answer the exigen
cy making suchyb/vc necessary, hut that nothing
would justify the taking the ivhole of. the country
and leaving its inhabitants to perish. That though
lin y miiiht be confined in “ narrower limits,” yet
there were some limits to which they would have a
right under tho law s of nature, tree from the rights
of Jarre. Whether they are now within thoee
limits, it is not my intention to enquire, (hough it
is well worthy of humane consideration, especial
ly ns they are receding' from*the “hunter life,”
vhieli originally justified the seizure of their iands,
nnd approaching the ugiieirlturai condition, which
brings them within the “ curse” of their creator,
and entitles them, in common with the rest ol
mankind, to a portion of tho earth, for their sup
port. But (ireat Britain never took one foot of
their land by force• »Sho chose the rather to adopt
a more enlarged and liberal policy, and living tp®
right, as admitted by Vattel, resulting, as he said,
from a “celebrated question to which the discove
ry of the new world had principally given
nud was therefore a new doctrine in the law of na
tions, she reposed herself upon the luwr ns it stood
previous to lliis now principle, und took the coun
try subject to the right of conquest. This right
:is every one ,knows confers upon the conqueror
only tho empire und ^he unappropriated domain,
hut private property is sacred. It L trtve the In
dians did yot hold their lands in private right, that
they enjoyed them in common ; but Great Britain,
greatly to the praise of her justice nnd humanity,
chose to respect lfidn( in that light, and consequent
ly w e bud in a statement of the Province of Geor-
in, in 1?*40, sent lunnu to the trac'd office in Loiv.
the original right w hich Vattel admits t in* had at Lion, tint nut an “ Englishman was settled within
the discovery of America, nnd that too, where the I this district when tho first Colony of Georgia *•