Newspaper Page Text
be done on process strictly eceerding «o 'be »U»y. present to render itt ilsjodg-
law, and by our judieial aeperfiskmof the /meals; detinue asi lira llouseOl
record of a Stale Courts most lie «•*- ' *— 1
vinced beyond a doubt, that jnis n»OW bp*
- j in quostioainc the King’s lefdjintellibiliiyf difficulty, aid tile word
» ; by directing a writ of error to a Court in (tainly to do
lemn supervision of State jurisdiction add
legislation, bas been begui^ clearly within
and on that direct and narrow path pre
scribed tor us by tho laws which confer the
power.
tV'iut then is tho course thos prescribed
by la#, aod by what law! That power
is tremendous, which sets at nought the
peunl laws of u Suite of this Union, It
must be clearly given; ita elocution may
require more thau the power of ibis Court.
It ought to be exercised in a manner
strictly according to the authority Confer
red, and so, to appear, “ for when confer
red, the Court will never, we trust, shrink
from its exercise," 5 P. 259* In correc
ting tlm errors of iufei tor courts, in con
futing them within the supienio law of the
land, as expounded by this tribunal, in an
nulling or affirming their practice and
their judgments, u court, of the lust resort
should be oagle-eyed to see that their
own proceedings should conform to the
direct and nkrrow path, which it coerces
others to follow. They commenco by o
writ of error, which is defined to be “ a
commission, by which the judges of ono
court are aothoriaed to examine a record
upon, which a judgment was given in an
other court, and on such examination, to
affirhi er reverse the same according to
law. 6 Wh. 409, Cohen vs. Virginia.—
The effect of.the writ of error is to bring
file record into Court, and submit the judg
ment of the inferior tribunal to re-exninin-
atinn. It acts only on the record; it re
moves it iuto tho supervising tribunal—
410. The citation if simply notice to the
opposite party, that the record is transfer
red hue another court, where ho utay ap
pear Of decline to appear as Ills judgment
or inclination may determine. It is not a
suit nor has it the effect of process—411.
The writ of error is the process which re-I (Ac Judiciary Aft or any lam of Con-
which he presides without HO allowance
txiptiiali gratia, on a petition of right;
(which is the only origin I could over
discover for an allowance of a writ of er
ror, by a Judge of a Court of error in this
country,) they do not recognize the seal
of ihe King’s own Court, or lira attesta
tion of its Clerk, as prov ng the correct
ness of the transcript of his proceedings
therein on a writ of error, directing the
Judges to return the record. ‘The Chief
Justice carries the originai roll, uni) the
transcript to the House ef Lords; they are
compared, end il found correct, he leaves
Ihe transcript and takes back tho original.
—4 Cocke, 21. D. Cunt. D. 293. 301.
2. Par. L. 2. The form of the return he
makes to the writ of error may be sefn in
Sho. Par. Cas. 127, Rex vs. Wolcttlt, n
criminal case on writ of error from the
House of Lords; so of the Court o( Com
mon Pleas, on a writ of error from K. B,
Lut 850, 3 Black. Com. pp. 375. So of
the K. B. to a writ of error from the Ex
chequer Chamber, Lut. 866. This re
turn authenticates the record or the trans
cript; the name of Ihe Clerk never np-
pears in a common law record, and in u
Court of Common law inspecting the re
cord of no inferior Court, the last thing
thought of would bo the ultestation of a
Clerk to tho schedule identified by nnd
accompanied by the return of the Chief
Justice ol the Court to whom it is direct
ed. When jho Chief Justice of a Court
makes a return to a writ of error, the
schedule annuxod is taken for the record
or transcript; all which it contains is be
fore the Court of Error; so urp all the
precedents; the whole record is verity.—
The authentication of a tecord by the at-
| testation of a Clerk is unknown to the
Common law, and is not recognized by
and the teatjoT the Court, the rule of the l on ward—not daring to consult any human
Court was probably adopted tu meet the'authority as a guide to my judgment, un-
■“ “ ard may syems evi- less the laws of tl» country and tho judg’
moves the record to this Court. It must
bear test of the Chief. Justice, be under
the seal of the Court and signed by the
Clerk thereof,” 1 Story 67, 257,2 DaH.
401. “ Its object is to cite the parlies to
this Court, to bring tip the record, nnd it
Is tho set of the Court, 8 Wh. 820, IS
Wh. 303, 4. S. P. Its form is that which
has boeu adopted and used iu Courts of
CVlbmon law for centuries, and in the
Stales from their organization. Its com
mand i* “ >f judgment lie therein given,
that thelt under your-teal you distinctly
und openly send the record and proceed
greis. The mode of authentication, so
us to rouke them evidence on trials or to
the Court, is not n innitur of more prac
tice; it is a question of evidence, to ho
settled by the principles of law, which
transcends the rules oi'Court. An exem
plification of u patent recorded in the of
fice of the Secrotnry of Slate of Geor
gia, under the seal of the State, was held
by this Court le bn as high evidence as
the original; though there was a yule of
the Circuit Court, that no exemplification
should bu received until the original pa
tent was proved to have been lost or do
ings aforesaid, with ali things concerning .si roved, or the non-production thereof is
legally accounted for or explained, on the
ground that it was not competent for lire
Court to exclndo it by its own rule.—Pnt-
tieson vs. Hinn, 5 Pit 233, 43. Tim
22d section requires that an Hiillmiiticuted
transcript ol tlm record shall he umioxed
to nnd returned with the writ of error.—
Tho authority of nny rule of this Court,
thou, must yield to this law, (according to
the principle of I’attinson vs. llimi, the
proviso to tho 17th section of llio Judicia
ry act—1 Story 60, and tho common law
rules of evidence. It is an universal prin
ciple in the construction of statutes, thut
where words arc used which Iihvb a fixed,
legal, nnd definite meaning, by the rules
of law they shall bo deemed to have been
used by the legislature with a reference
to such well ktiowti ami received accepta
tion unless a coutrury intention appeals in
the law itself, or by ne,ccssary implication.
the same, to tho Supreme Court of the U-
nited States, together with thix writ."—
The language uf this writ cannot be
miataken. ft is directed 10 the Judg-
etoflhe Slate Court; the order is to them
to send the record under their seal, so that
the return mutt be made by th,em. This
command qf the writ is its essence, it is
tho meant and the process, 3 Wh. 304, by
which the appellate jurisdiction of this
Chart is directed to be exercised by tho
25th nnd 22d sections of the judiciary act
the words of which are, “ upon a writ of
errer whereto shat! be annexed and
turned therewith, at the day and place
therein mentibned, un authenticated Irani
cript of the record." 1 Story 60. If the
question it atkud, by whum the record
tliull bo to annexed and returned, the writ
aiiswen, by the Judges: if how, undet
their teal distinctly andopotily.: if in what
form it thall be so annexed und returned, j Authenticated then means, as irunscripts
the answer is to .he found in every return
to a writ of error iu the Courts of tho
Common L <w and the States, from the
Court of King's Bench in the one of the
Supreme, and uf Courts of Common Pleas
or other Courts to whom a writ of error
lies, in the other, nnd in every return lo t
certiorari to a Justice of the Peace iu
both. And it • doubt can arise whether
llm rules and practice, the forms and mode
of procoediug thus adopted nnd acted on
through all time and in all Courts ucting
bn the principles and according to tho
cblirte of the common law, it to be con
sidered at a rule in the Federal Count,
until altered by law, or the Courts in the
exercise of their legal authority, the ait-
ewer will be found in 1 Story 67, 256; 3
Wh. 221; 4 Wh. 115, 7 Wb. 45, 5 Cr.
222; 10 Wb. 56; 1 Pit 613.
The forms of writs havo always been
deemed in themselves the very evidence
of llie-law, hnd taken by the greatest judg
es as safe guides to their judgment.—
“The 'writs in the register ure the body
and as it "were, the text, of which our
books for 400 years oru but exposi
tions, the fouudation, 'tlm principles," 8
Cucke, preface—" for U|ioii these ftinda
mentals the whole law doth depend."—
F. N. B. preface. If'.hey arc of them
selves authority, how much is that author-
try strengthened by universal adoption,
sanction, and usage. The tame
marks upply equally to tho forms to the
retorns ol writs. They respond to the
command of lira wiits, und are signed
by those to whom they are direcl
od—'he Sheriff or the J udges, as the case
Way tie. It would be un useless affecta
tion of learning to quote books, Cases,
precedents, or forms, in support of these
principles. It is enough to utserl, with
out the fear of contradiction, that in the
whole body of the common law, English
or American, there cannot bo found an
Mrepjio’n. A writ qf errbr never issued
from aoy Court'to a Cierk of an inferior
Court, or any one but the Judges thereof;
a Court of Error hever adjudicated on a
record returned to theta by • Clerk of the
Court 'tb whom it was directed, or on a
transcript authenticated bv him alone.—
The Clerk has the custody but uot the
control over the records of the Court; ha
dare not remove them, and Ita cannot au
thenticate a transcript. High and su
preme at is the authority of the King’s
Bench, ip which the King is Resumed to
bad ever beau and then were, by all Su
perior Courts—authenticated by the re*
turn and signature, or seal of tho Judges
or presiding Judge of the Court, to (cram
tho writ of error was directed, nnd “ an
nexed und returned therewith," means ut-
tuched thereto as a schedule which wus
the transcript culled for. It is done by
the Judges, who ulotio have the comtol of
the record, and could be done in no other
way, but by direction of nu Act of Con
gress, or (for the sake uf argument,) at
loust an explicit and definite rulo of this
Court, expressly dispensing with the mode
of authentication, which has been in use
for ages, and was evidently referred to in
tho 22d Section, and subsiiiuting therefor
the attestation of the Clerk under tlm seal
of the Court. It is unnecessary to exam
ine how tar such a rule would come wtili-
in die power of this Court, under the 17ih
Section, authorising “ all tho Courts of
tho United States to make all necessary
rules, for tlm elderly conducting llm busi
ness of the Courts," as explained iu 7 Cr.
34—10 Wh. 22,56, 64—for no such rule
exists. The 11th rule adopted in 1797,
is “ that the Clerk of the Court to which
nny writ of error shall bo directed, may
make return of the same by transmilling a
true copy of the record, and of all pro-
cucdiugsin tho cate, under hit hand and
the seal of theCourt, 1 Pit. prof. V II.—
Construing this rule us an act of Congress
il would nut be taken to alter tho rules ol
the common law, further than Its words or
legnl import extended, and would leave
them applicuble to tlm return oftlie Judges,
and the annexation of tlm transcript to llm
writ by them—* a fortiari”—when these
rules are so evidently embodied iu llm
22d Section. Taking the 1st Section of
the fourth article of the Constitution,
the law of 1790, tlm 22d Section oi
the Judiciary Act, nnd this lltli rule
us laws in pari materia, there is no
difficulty. In 1789,. Congress had not
executed their constitutional powers to
prescribe the mode of proving judicial re
cords—hence iu the 22d Section, the
word "authenticated" only is used, appli
cable to the common law mode of aUlheu-
tication, until Congrost should legislate oh
the subject, and prospectively after they
should have prescribed tbe mode of au
thentication. As the law of the suecred-
mg Session, 1st Story 63, rebuited file
certificate of the presiding fudge to lie
suporndded to the attestation of the Clerk
- B ,al *uch * a * ‘h**’“‘ten
don of the Court, in adopting it. The
return of the Judge to the writ of error,
amtoxing thereto, and at its bead, a trans
cript of the record at a schedule, being
considered as tautnmoqni to his,certificate
at the foot of the attestation of the Cletk.
The rule too, tuperudds to the requisites
of tlm common law, thut the seal of the
Court should be affixed; thus distinctly re
ferring'’ ttf tho law of 1790, and conform
ing, sobsiun'iully, to all its provisions. Te
impure n different moaning to this rule,
would be to make thi» Court declare, that
in tho execution of their power,' they would
judicially revise, inspect with judicial
eyes, and act on u paper purporting to be
the-transcript of a record, when llm evi
dence of its authenticity was so utterly
defective, that none of the Judges would
permit il to be'read in evidence in a Cir
cuit Court, to shew tlm acts und proceed
ing of the tribunal from which it 1 profess
ed to emanate. In a civil suit, brought
un a judgment of tho Supetior Court of
the Comity of Gwinnett in and for the
Stale of Georgia, certified precisely us
this is, such a paper could not be shown
to a Jury, in any Circuit or DistricrCouif
Of tlm United States, as even prima facia
evidence, that a judgment had been ren
dered. Qn n pints of nul till record, any
Court not silting in Geotgia, State or
Fuderul, would render judgment for the
Defendant, on a transciipt so allesleil.—
Ye', that tins Court, in the exercise of its
highest jurisdiction, will cousider this pa
per, when nttosted by the same Cletk,
and under the same seal, in a criminal
case, as the record of tho sanid Court, ns
its judgment on those great «onstitmioual
questions which agitate the country, a-
lartn tho friends of the Union, and (Ke ad
vocates for the supremacy ol its supreme
law, as expounded by this high tribunal
under its awful responsibility, is a princi
ple which I *ani hound to presume has
never received the deliberate sanction of
this Court; still more strongly so, that
never intended to embody and promulgate
such a priiiciplo, iii the rule of 1797. In
oty humble judgment, it admits of no tuch
construction. I canuot inspect it here ju
dicially, when there is no appeartiico
which can cute irregularity, waive error,
or by express or implied consent author
ize eio to solemnly consider hero, a piper
which I should Jra bound to reject eUe-
wliure, directing a trial forgiving judgment
on a plea. Wbqu parties appeal, and,
by consent, state a case, or consider a re
cord as before this Court, Without rnqui-
ing into the mode of its removal Or au
thentication, it is not the duty of a Judge
to look with an eagle eye, to find some a-
polftgy for declining tho exeicise of u ju
risdiction, to which all parlies have sub
mitted. Yet when it appears that its re
cord is not legally before them, no Coutt
of en or can roviao tlm Judgment of on in
ferior Court. No Judge vrrer scat dies a
record to find out that the citizenship of
the parties is not avorred; but, when ho
judicially knows it, his power over the
caitso ceases—it is coram ttonjudice. It will
ho dismissed, even in this Court, aud oth
er causes, in tlm like predicament, will he
stricken from tlm docket 9 3 Dull. 382—4.
If there wus even a case winch called
for the application of this rule it is litis,
though the proceeding is ex parte. If we
render judgment, it is open to no revision
hereuflei ; beyond this tribunal the Consti
tution has placed no sentinel or gttaid, to
protect lilt rights of pnrties under the su
preme law of the laud, from lawless viola
tion. Tho process which unnuls even the
cx parte Judgments of this tribunal, will
lubject the elements of this Goventmetx
to a dreadful test. It hero, that the su
preme power of the nation Ims placed thy
morions casket, which contains that ma
gic, mystic hand, and which unites twenty-
four sovereign ami independent States, in
one harmonious. Union, which, from the
wrecks of a disjointed confederacy, writh
ing under the agonising nnd convulsiva
throes of u mighty revolution, left the peo
ple free; but, uot knowing what freed oty
was, or how its blessings could be enjoyed
—a nominal nation, on whom » kind und
beneticieut Providence has bestowed its
blessings, iu the fulness of licniguant boun
ment'of those who are, and have been
their expositors; bet under every' obliga-
iid»», not tolake the breath of any man, as
the law of the land, whilo sitting here by
a power which forbids any tribunal to cor
rect llie errors of an honest judgment; I
cannot approach a case like this without
awe and dread, whether concurring or dis
senting, supported by the high authority
of my brethren, or compelled to act in o-
bcdience to what my poor judgment dic
tates to me at one higher.
(Toht continued next week. J
TREATY WITH TUE CREEK INDIANS.
The following Treaty has received the
assent of the Senate, aud having previ
ously received the approbation of llie
President of the United Stales, may be
expected to be officially published at an
eat ly day. Having meanwhile obtained a
copy of it (the injunction ofsecresy u-
pon it having been removed) we antici
pate that publication.—Nat. Intel.
ARTICLES OF A TREATY i
blade at the City of Wash ingtim by
Lewis Cass, thereto specially author
ized by the President of the United
States, and the Creek tribe of Indians.
Art. 1. The Creek tribe of Indians
cede re tbe United Stales all their land
east of the Mississippi river.
Art. 2. Thu United States engage re
survey ihe said land, us soon us the same
can be conveniently done, after the ratifi
cation of this treaty; and when the same
is surveyed, to ullow ninety of the princi
pal chiefs of tlio Creek trib?, to select
one half section each, which tracts shall
be reserved from sale for their use, for the
term of five years, unless sooner disposed
1 of by them. A census of such persons
shall ho taken under the direction of tho
, President, and the selections shall be made
so as to include the iinpioveineuts of each
person within his section, if the same can
be so made, and if not, then all the per
sons belonging to the same town, entitled
to sections, and whoAtamiot make tho
same, so as to include tlieit improve
ments, shall take them in one body in a
propor form. Aud twenty sections shall
be solectod, under the direction of (ho
President, for the orphan children of, the
Creeks, and divided, and retained or sold
for their beuefit, us the President may di-
rort. Provided. hqtvever, that no selec
tions or locations under this treaty, shall
be so made us to include the agency re
serve.
Art. 3. Tltoso pacts may be conveyed
by the persons selecting tbe same, to any
person for a fair consideration, in such
manner, ss the President may direct.—
Art. 11. The following claims shall be
paid by the United States:
For ferries, bridges qnd causeways,
three thousand dollars ; provided that the
same shall becume the property of the U.
States. <
For the payment of certain judgments
obtained against (he chiefs, eight thousand
five hundred and seventy dollars.
For losses for which they suppose the
.United States responsible, seven thousand
seven hundred and ten dollats.
For the payment of improvements un
der the treaty of 1826, one thousand dol
lars.
I The three following annuities shall be
paid for life:
To Tuske-hcw-haw-Cusetaw,twp hun
dred dollars. .
To the Blind Unite; King, ono hun
dred dollars.
To Neah Micco, one hundred dollars.
There shall he paid 'tlm sum of fifteen
dollars to each person who has emigra
ted without expense'to the United Slates,
but llie whole sum allowed under this pro
vision shall uot exceed fourteen hundred
dollars.
There shall be divided among the per
sons who suffered in consequence of be
ing prevented Irani emigrating, three thou
sand dollars.
The land hereby ceded shull remain as
a (und from which all the foregoing pay
ments, except those in the ninth and tenth
articles, shall be paid.
Art. 12. The United States ure desi-
ed nnd attic, resulted in the unanitnofta a.lcpiuitf.
of the resolutions and preamble reported by the
committee. We hope they Will he generally read.
At this juncture, ever}’ tiling should be attentive
ly considered which will aid in the formation of
n correct judgment Of our true situation, our le
gal rights, and the meens necessary to secure
their preservation. The preamble succinctly and
clearly enumerates the reserved and constitution
al rights of Georgia, and the principles by which
site will bo governed in their enforcement, and in
her future intercourse with tho govern.nmt of tho
United States. We speak of the views promul-
ged in the preamUle as the views of*he State,
because open the subject to which theyrelate ; their
is fortunately bulone voiee. And while dignity
and firmness should characterize 4)* pme*edt*gs
of Georgia, it cannot he nmiss to/wtiactly avow
the grounds upon which sho nsswnet her present
attitude, inasmuch as she deeu* theta satisfacto
ry nnd c(inclusive, and its tbry ,n *y sorve to CD-
tighten and bring to oar Hid, druse not tranwMrt
led by party fetters, or inCnplcirated from forming
a correct judgment 1 by the strength of local at
tachments, of political ifejudices, or roligiout
bigotry.
public Meeting;
In pursuance of previous notice. Iho citizens-of
Tho county of M uscqtee esse milled at the Court
House, in the town A Columbus, on Saturday the
7th day of Anri), for the purpose of receive
ing anti adopting the Preamble and Resolutions,
dratted by tho Committee appointed at a previous
meeting. / i
Col. Sea Berta Joses then.submitted the fill-
lowing preamble and resolutions, which were
road—
Tho Committee appointed to draw up n preamble
nnd resolutions relative to the late decision ofthe
Supreme Court of the United States, in the
case Of Samuel A. Worcester, would respectful-
■ ly
REPORT:
That llie occasion which has culled us together
is one of no ordinary interest or occurrence.—
, . , , _ ,l. is one o no nramury interest or ucusii™™.—
rous that the Creeks should remove o the Thi> r ^ lmI „J t convened to contend
country west of tlje Mississippi, and join - - ■'*' 1
their countrymen there, nnd, for this pur
pose, it is agreed that as fast as the Creolts
ure prepared to emigrate, tltoy shall be
removed at the expense of tho United
States, and shall receive subsistence whilo
ufionthe journey, and for ojto year after
their arrival at their new homes. Provi
ded, however, that this article shall not be
construed so as to con.pel any Creek In
dian to emigrate, hot they shall he free to
go oi slay, uslhey please.
Art, 13. There shall also t»e given to
each emigrating warrior u rifle, moulds,
wiper and ammunition, mid to each family
one blanket. Thrcu thousand dollars, to
for purtyrights, looking forward to ambitious views
personal aggrandisement or political favor. Tho
question for oar consideration is one, involving
the dearest interest und most sacred rights of free
men—an interest, deep und vital, us our exis
tence as a Union—Ihe right of self government.
In coming to tbe consideration of this .momentous
question, we should summon to our aid all our en
ergies. lit not distempered passion or excited
feeling disturb our deliberations and drive us into
intemperate excesses; but let wisdom, modera-
titiou nnd firmness animate our counsels and di
rect our measures. The late decision of the Su
preme-Court relative to the trial and imprisonment
of Samuel A. Worcester, for a violation of, and
tinder the laws of tho State of Georgia, strikes
at the very root of the tree of Liberty: and while
we shonld in all cases within the legitimate sphere
of its Jurisdiction pay respect to its decisions.
■ . .. and obev its mandates, yet when that Court so
he expended as the President may direct, flir forget9 tho rigllt8 of / he Statcs n9 , 0 , rat npln
shall be allowed, lor the term ol twenty ! them under li>o<, und attemptato deprive them
years, for teaching their children. As 1 of tho power of making laws for their own go*
soon as half their people emigrate, one j v f r n».ent, .1 is the right, it is the duly of the peo-
placksnii.t. shall he allowed them, and an- ^Se a Jlt" U ” P n<! " '
other when two-thirds emigrate, together
with one ton of iron nnd two hundred
weight of steel annually for each black
smith. These blacksmiths shall be suj)-
ported for twenty vdars.
Ait. 14.‘The Creek country west of
the Mississippi-shall be solemnly guaran
tied to the Creek Indians, nor shall any
State or Territory ever have a right to
The contracts shall be certified by some | pass laws for tbo government of such in
person appointed tor the put jiosc by the
President, but shall not bu vulid till ihe
President approves the same. A title
»u-ii t m aiven bv tho United State" «•> the
completion of the payment.
Art. 4. At the cud of five years, lII
the Creeks entitled to these selections,
and desirous of remaining, shall receive
patents therefor, in fee simple, train the
United Slates.
Art. }. All intruders upon the country
hereby ceded shall be removed therefrom
in the same manner as intruders may be re
moved by law from other public land, un
til the country is surveyed, and the selec
tions made; excepting however, from this
provision, those, white pet sons who have
made improvements utul uot expelled the
Creeks from (heirs, such poisons may re
main till their crops are gathered. After
the country is surveyed and the sections
made, this- article sIihII not operate upou
that part of it uot included in such sec
tions. But intruders shall, in the maimer
before described, be removed Irom these
sections, fora toim of five years, from the
ratification of this treaty or until the same
are surveyed to white persons.
Art. 6. Twenty-nine sections, iu addi
tion to the foregoing, may be located and
patents for the same shall then issue, to
those persons, being Creeks, to whom the
same may be assigned by Ihe Creek tribe.
(linns, but they shall be allowed to govern
themselves; so fur as may be compatible
wiih (he general jurisdiciion which Con
gress may think ’ proper re exercise over
them. And the United States will also
defend them flora tho unjust hostilities
of other Indiuns, and will also, as soon as
the boundaries of the Crock counrty west
ol tho Missixsqipi are ascertained, cause a
patent or grant to bo executed re tho
Creek tribe, agreeably to tho third section
of tho act of Congress of May 2d, 1820,
entitled " An act to provide for an ex
change of lands with the Indians residing
in any ol lira States or Territories, and
for their removal west of the Mississippi."
Art. 15. This treaty shall ho obligato
ry on lira contracting parties, us soon as
the sume shall be ratified by the United
Slates.
in testimony whereof, the said Lewis
Cnss, mid the undersigned Chiefs of the
said tribe, havo hereunto set their hands,
at the City of Washington, this 14lh day
March, A'. D. 1832.
LEW. CASS,
Opothleholv,
Tuehebatchcehadgo,
lifemntla,
Tuchcbatchc Micco,
William McGilveri/,
lienjamin Marshall.
In the presence of Samuel Bell, Wm
ted to include them as near us muy he in
the centre, Hnd there shall also be granted
tv, but would have bestowed them lit vain! by patent, to Benjamin Marshall, one suc-
But whenever the grantees of these tracts j R. King, John Tipton, Wm. Wilkins, C.
possess improvements, they shall be loca- i C. Clay, J. Speight, Samuel W. Mardis,
had not this Government arose, the no* lion ol land to include his improvements
blest work ul man,constructed bvu patrio
tism us pure as poor mortalily-udmila, and
in all lira |ileui'udo ol w isdom aud justice,
tliat belongs to finite beings—a Govern
ment which unseen and unl'clt, save here
where its muchineiy is visible, operates (if
the expression can bo applied to the work
on the Chattahoochee river, to be bound
ed for one mile in a direct lino along said
river and to run back for quantity. There
shall also bu granted to Joseph Bruner, a
colored man, one half section of land for
his services ns interpreter.
Art. 7. All tho locations authorized by
of mini) like a Providence, its existence j this treaty, with the exception of thut to
hot'known hy its physical action, but fell j Benjamin Marshall, shall be made in con
ns the deepest moral conviction, known!formily with the lines of the surveys;
and hailed, only by the blessings it difl'u-! and the Creeks relinquish all claim for
sits. Yet lira Government is strong iu all improvements,
its movements; directed in any of its de-
partmunts; confined to the direct and nar
row path, preset ibed bv a supreme law
which all must obey. Public confidence
lias attended and public good lias flowed
without stint. In its foreign action,
this lakes no pail; but, in its domes
tic movements, in asserting and enforcing
the supremacy and majesty of tho law,
by its exposition und due administration,
this tribunal is lira depository of the con
fidence and judicial power of lira nation—
the well tested lie, which, whilevor re
tained, will preserve it as it began, " E
pluribus unum." When I reflect on the
extent of the judicial power, lira subjects
of its a|iplicatiun, the mode and effects of
its operation, and its Vital bcariug on all
the most precious institutions of the coun
try, 1 tremble nt the awful responsibility
of its individual members. Bound uot to
transcend the limits of the Constitution
aod laws, and equally bound not to falter
within them, when judicial duty impels mo
mprovemenls.
Art. 8. An additional annuity of twelve
thousand dollars shull be paid to the
Creeks for the term of five years, aud
thereafter the said annuity shall be re
duced to ten thousand dollars, and shall be
paid for the term of fifteen years. All the
annuities dun to the Creeks shall be |*aid
iu such manner as the tribe may direct.
/1rf. 9. For the purpose of paying cer
tain debts due by the Creeks, and to re
lieve them iu their precent distressed con
dition, the sum of one hundred thousand
dollars shall be paid to the Creek tribe,
ns soon as may be, after the ratification
hereof, to be applied to the payment of
their just debts, and then to their own re
lief, and to be distributed as they may di
rect, and which shall be ih full considera
tion of all improvements.
Art. 1(). The sum of sixteen thousand
dollars shall be allowed as a compensation
to the delegation sent to this place, aud for
the pax ment of their expenses, and of
the claims against them.
J. C. Isaacks, Ji»o'. Crowell, L A.
Benjamin Marshall, )
Thomas Carr, > Interpreters.
John II. Brodnax, J
COLUMBUS—SATURDAY. APRIL 14.
fly* We nre authorized to announce
MIRABEAU B. LA MAX, Esq as a candidate
for Congress at the eusuing election.
Tlte Preamble und Resolutions reported by the
1 committee appointed at a meotiag held in this
town on the 28th ult. to express the views of the
citizens of the county of Muscogee, rclulire to
the derision of tho Supreme Court in ilia case of
Worcester, and adopted nt nn adjourned meet
ing on the 7tliinst.will be found in this day's En
quirer. Ou perusal, it will be perceived thut the
coinmitteu do not gu into un esainiutlein of the
question; ot the principles on which Georgia
founds her right of jurisdiction over the Chero
kee Territory j nor. indeed, into u formal refuta
tion of the positions advanced in the opinion of
the Bapreme Court: but, us was their aim, nnd as
was. doubtless, most ptoper for the fceasion. the
committee simply promulge the settled axioms
which have governed Georgia in doterniiningand
adjusting the Complicated und xnomaluus politi
cal relations which should subsist between her
self and a peculiar people within her durierod
limits. A distinct und full recapitulation of these
aiiomsof political powsr on which this State ba
ses herrights.isembodiedintheprexmbleand reso
lutions adopted at the Muscogee meeting, and will,
we trust, subserve a heneficiat purpose. Previous
to the passage of the resolutions, x discussion
arose on tlieir adoption, of adisearsive character
embracing in its range, tbe past legislation of the
United Steles and Georgia over the Indian lril.es
within our limits, the political character of these
tribes, the validity anil force of Indian Treaties,
and the recent decision of the Supreme Court in
tlm ense ofWorcestor. Thi»dis.-ussior, protract-
selves before the State to protect nnd defend its
sovereignty.—In this most important and respond
silile si uution nre wo now plnrod—To this most,
awful crisis hove we now arrived—Tliore is no.
middle courBi—Wo must either obey the man
date of the Court nnd submit to be slives.'or wo
must refuse obedience and resolve to defend ta
tbo lust extremity, and at tbo most imminent
hazard, our determination to be free. Nor arc
we alone concerned in the decision of this most
important queston. To u*. our fill hers transmit
ted the inheritance-of freedom—Our children,
will claim it at oar hands—Can wc consent to pai r
with its brightest jewel—its most invaluable pri
vilege. Shull wc bring shame upon onr mothers
and transmit te our posterity, the bndge of sieve.y.
for theit inheritance I Never.
Bj; llie war °f the Revolution which was senf-
ed will, tho blood of our fathers, tho several Stales
of tbe confederacy established their liberty -nnd'
compelled the haughty Monnrcbof Britain te air
knowledge them as free, sovereign nnd indeperf
dent. Among them, Georgia bore no dishonora
ble part j und with tho rest of the States, she-
rose, from ihe bumble condition of a province, tie
the rank of u sovereign nnd independent nation.
As such sovereign and independent nation, sho
signed the constitution end became one of tlte’
United States, in entering into the Union, sjie-
parted with none of the rights of sovereignty
which ure not included in that compact, nnd re
served to bet self ns a sovereign all the rights and
neweis not delegated te the United Ptntesor pro
hibited to the States. The most valuable among
them is the right of Icgislntion over nil the terri
tory within her limits, nnd the inhabitants of lira
same; and we shull look in vain into that instru
ment to find where the States have parted with
that right. The Supreme Court has long since
acknowledged, thut the State of Georgia has □ tee
simple title to the lands in tho Indian Territory.
Tout tbe Legisloturc of the-Mute possesses thtptnej
er of disposing of the unappropriated lands Wltliiti
its own limits, in such manner as its own judg.
ment shall dictate, and that tin Indian title is not
such as to be absolntelji repugnant to a seisin in fen
on thejmrt nf the State.* It cannot be coptrover’s
od, that all that purl of thu Cherokee couqtry
over which the State of Georgia has claimed and
exercised jurisdiction lies within her limits —
Possessing then, the power of legislation oxer all
territory w ithin her own limits, and the seisin in
Ihe to this very country, our mental vision is too
obtuse to perceive, how the right of jurisdiction
can be denied, or how it can enter into the mind
(if any one to conceive that the Cherokee nation
is a distinct and sovereign people. A sovereign
people, constituting a distinct aud independent na
tion. occupying a country lo which another foreign
and sovereign nation possesses the fee simple title,
presents a paradox which thc talents, legal research
and ingiimiti/ of the Supreme Court only, can
reconcile and explain, nnd w liiclti* entirely abovo
the comprehension of common minda.
Nor has the Supreme Court been more forta*
nate in its attempt to bring furwnrd. in behalf
of the United Slates, a claim lo jurisdiction over
this distinct und independent people. To put thin
question completely at rest, mid to settle all diffi.
cullies on a subject which, at one lime, [brents!**
ed to shake the AtoericHBConfe-^racy to its foun
dation!, a compromise was mado which is noWpow
disturbed,! and tit the tionty of oessioo of
... , ? 6,wcen Georgia and llie United States,
the tinted Stales “ceded" to Georgia iehattrrt
claim, right or tide they mau have had to jaris*
ditiwn or noil, of auu lands lying within the Uni
ted Staten, und out oj the propnr boumiarieu of any
of the Staten, and situated south of the southern
boundaries of Tennessee, North Carolina and
Carolina, and east of the boundary line
of the territory ceiled by Georgia to the United
States,**t These lines include the Cherokee coun
try wilbrn the limits of Georgia, of whicJt» Ihe
Supreme Couit could not have been ignorant
Tho conclusion is therefore irresistibly pressed
upon your committee, that the Supreme Court <
in making ibe late decision, mmt wholly disre~
gard those great leading principles and the posi
tive recognition of tho jurisdiction of Georgia
over the Indian country by the United States.
Your committed would therefore recommend
the adoption of the follow in* resolutions:
l«t. Resolved, That the province of Georgia *
extending from the Savannah to the Mississippi
Kivur ( was vented in full and absolute sovereignty
in the King of Great Britain.
2d. Resolved, That by thu war of the Revela
tion and the treaty of 1783, the State of Gwtfgm
* In decision of Supreme Court, delivered by
Chief Justice Marshall in cn*e of Fletcher mn
Peck—C C rune he’s reports, pago 128 and 142.
tSce samecaHe, page 142.
t See treaty of ration Prince's Digest, page
528, article ^ 1 *