Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

2 1 () for her deliverance —when, in 1789 he crossed the Bridge of Trenton , on which classic spot the hands c freemen “reared for him triumph; 1 .: bowers.” while a choir of innocents, with seraph chaunt, “welcomed the jnighty Chief once more,” and “vir gins lair, and matrons grave, strewed the hero’s way with (lowers.” The journey of the first P sident to the Seat of Government was one continued triumph; but no where was it of so feeling a character as at the bridge if Trenton. That was indeed a classic ground. It was there, on a frozen surface, that, in 1776, was achieved the glorious event which restored the fast-lailing fortunes of Liberty, and gave to her drooping eagles a renewed and bold er flight. What a contrast to the Chief must have been this spot in 1789, when no longer “a mercenary foe aimed’ against him the fatal blow,” when no more was beared the roar of combat, the shouts of the victors, the groans of the dying —but the welcome of thousands to Liberty’s great Defender, the heartfelt homage of freemen to the Deliverer of his country. The President alighted from his carriage, and approached the bridge uncovered. As he pass ed under the triurr phal arch, a cherub perched amid its foliage, crowned him with laurel which will never fade, while seraph strains from angel min strelsy sweetly filled the air, as the Hero trod on his way of flowers. Washington shed tears '. The merit of these appropriate and classical decorations is due to the late Mrs. Stockton, of Pnnbcton a lady of literary acquirements, and refined taste. She was familiarly called the Duchess, from her elegance and dignity of manners ; was a most ardent patriot during the war of the Revolution, and, with the Stockton family, was marked for persecution on the ruthless invasion of the Jer seys. This distinguished lady was the grand-mother of Mr. Secretary Rush who is “doubly blessed” in Ins Revolutionary ancestry ; both bi father and grand lather having sign ed the Declaration of Independence —a most honored distinction, and, we believe, enjoyed by no other cit izen of our extensive American ■Empire. Georgia and the United States. HOUSE OF REPRESENT ATIVES. March 3, 1327. The Select Committee, to which were referred a Message of tne President of the United States, of the sth inst. with accompanying documents, ami a Message ot the Bth instant, with accompanying documents; also, a Report and Resolutions of the Legislature of Georgia, with accompanying doc uments; also, a Joint Resolution to indemnify the Creek Indi ms for the land lying between the Chatahouchie River and the di viding line between Georgia and Alabama: also, a Message oi the President, with accompanying doc uments, ot’ 2d March, have had those subjects under considera tion, and beg leave to report as follows: The civilized nations of Europe, who, at different periods, discover ed and settled the various portions of the American continent, founded, principally, on the right of discovery a claim to the Sovereignty over the Regions so discovered. This claim of sovereignty does not appear, at least in the case of the English Gov ernment, to have extended, itself, beyond an exclusion of the claims of other nations. The Committee are not aware, that the English Gov ernment, or its Representatives, the Colonial Governments, ever assum ed, in virtue of this claim of sover eignty, to exercise the power of in ternal legislation over the persons who composed the various Indian tribes, within the regions to which the claim of sovereignty extended. These tribes were, on the contrary, consid red and treated as separate, and, to a certain degree, indepen dent nations. A friendly inter course with them was kept up by means of conferences and councils, boundaries, the right to establish and maintain military posts, and occa sionally the right of passage were malt er ot stipulation, by forma! con ventions, entered into between the Crown or Colonies on the one hand am*, the Chiefs and Warriors of the tribesonthe other. When th, pro visions ot’ these treaties were bro ken by the Indian tribes, or when, in any other way, a state of hostili ty arose, wars ensued, as between separate civilized countries, and these wars were concluded by trea ty. No doubt, m the most early pe riods of our history, and in reference to the remnants of tribes, which had ceased to have a separate existence, transactions may have occurred, which imply a different principle of action, on the part of the British or Colonial Governments; but it is be lieved, that no attempt was ever made nV thos* Governments, or Any oi them, to incorporate the Indian tribes into the body politic, or to carry the right of sovereignty lar ther.than to exclude the suveriegn ty of other free States, and to regu- Jate, at discretion, the intercourse with the tribes thus subjected. In the like manner, the European Governments claimed, by virtue of discovery, a right in the soil, occupied, by the Indian tribes. It is not neces sary, nor perhaps possible, to define the precise extent to which this claim was carried, in all instances. It is well known, however, that it was a claim of a right of pre-emption re* siding in the Government. By vari ous public and legislative acts, indi viduals were disqualified from ac quiring a title to Indian lands, by di rect purchase of the Indians; and the Government recognized a right of occupancy in the Indians, which it claimed to itself the exclusive prero gative of extingushing. This well known fact has received the sanc tion of judicial decision, (Bth Whea ton,) in the case of Johnson and Gra ham’s Lessees vs. Mclntosh. Such was the state of things before the Revolution. In the event of the war of Inde pendence, the rights of the British Government devolved upon the Uni ted States. But a grave question arose, whether, in reference to the Indian tribes within the limits of any State, the right of exclusive sover eignty and exclusive pre-emption, formerly vested in the Crown, pass ed, in virtue of the Declaration of In lepcndencc, to the Confederation of States, or to the ind vidual States, respectively, within the limits of which each tribe was situated. On the one hand, it was contended, that the right to the unoccupied lands, and, what was considered the same thing, the land occupied by the In dians, havmg originally resided in that Government, which was com mon to all the Colonies, and having been conquered from that Govern ment, at the joint expense and ef fortsofall thc g Colonies, passedto the Confederation; on the other hand, it was urged, that each state, becom ing independent, succeeded, within its owe limits, to all the rights for merly vested in the Crown. The controversies growing out ol this difference <4 opinion, were of the most serious character. They were one chief cause, which retarded the adoption ot the articles of Con federation, they foimed the subject ol some of the most embarrassing questions, which were presented to the consideration of the Continental Congress. The difficulties thus rising were ol too great magnitude to be settled, by any positive decision in favor of either party. They were practical ly obviated, by successive act- of cession, on the part of the States, laying claim to ext'-nsive tracts of unoccupied Western lands. Tne conditions on which thes cessions were made, by the different States, were not uniform; nor did Congress, in accepting these cessions, admit that, without them, the Confedera cy would have possessed no title to the unoccupied lands. It was a set tlement by coinpromise, between conflicting parties, whose interests were too important to admit of any other mode of adjustment. Georgia was the only State, having large claims to unoccupied land on her Western frontier, which did not either before or shortly after the adoption oftlic Federal Constitution, make such a cession to the United Stat« s. Resolutions were r peatedlv adopted by (he old Congress, recom mending to her a cession, on tlx *anie principles on n Inch t tie ce -sions ot the other States, and particularly Virginia, had been made. In the year 1788, Georgia offered to Con gress a cession ot land comm ncinu on the Chatahouchie river, at her Southern boundary, running up that river one hundred and fifty miles, thence, due West to the Mississippi] —a tract comprehending ttie lower halt’ of the present States of Alabama and the Mississippi. Several con ditions were attached to this cession, among others that of a guarantee t > Georgia of all the remainder of the unoccupied lands, which she claimed 'o the West. These conditions wen not satisfactory to Congress, and the cession was not accepted. In 1795 the Legislature of Geor gia proceeded to make extensive sales of th- unoccupied lands on her Western frontier. Great embarrass ments arose, relative tothc titles ac quired under tin . ■ sales: and at length, in 1802, a compromise was entered into between Gt orgia and the United States, in virtue ot' which and on conditions mutuality accepta ble, Georgia ceded to the United States all her right and title. West ward of a certain line; and the United States ceded to Georgia all the claim, right and title, of the United States, to the jurisdiction and sod ot the territory East of the said line, assuming, at the same time, the ob ligation of extinguishing the Indian title to all the lauds East of the said line, as soon as it could be done “pea ceably and on reasonable terms.” — I hese articles of cession were con cluded between the Commissioners ot the United Statesand those ot Georgia, on the 24th April. 1802. At this time the Occo ee river for med the Eastern boundary of the Creek Indians, and the quantity of land occupied by them in Georgia amounted to 19,578,890 acres. In pursuance of the compact ot 1802, and about a few months after its conclusion, a treaty was made b< twe n the Un.ted State- ami thi Creck.s, by which a purtipn of land GEORGIA STATESMAN, MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1827. was ceded by the Indians; and a still i larger portion, by another treaty, concluded in 1805. By these two treaties, there were ceded to the United States, for the benefit oi Georgia, 2,713,890 acres of land. In the course of the late war, a part of the Creeks were excited to hostilities against the United States. Having been vanquished by the va lor and conduct ot' General Jackson and his troops, a treaty was conclud ed, by which a considerable cession of lands was made to Georgia, and the integrity of all their remaining lands was guarantied to the Creeks. By a treaty concluded in 1818, an other cession was made of two large tracts of land; and, by the treaty of 1821, y t another cession was made by which the Flint and the Chatta houchie became the Eastern bounda ry of the Creeks. By the three last mentioned cessions 11.735,599 acres of land were acquired by Georgia, mak.ng, together with those obtain ed, under the two first cessions, an aggregate of 14,748.690 acres, be ing about two thirds of all the lands po.-sessed by the Creeks, in the State of Georgia, at the date of th' Convention of 1802 At the same date, the Cherokees were in posses sion of 7,152.110 acres of laud, with in the chartered ami conventional limits of the State of Georgia. Two treaties have been held bv the Uni ted States with the Cherokees, ii pursuance of the compact of 1802, by which 995,310 acres of land have been acquired to Georgia. In 1822 a sum oi $20,000 was ap propriated, to defray the expense of ; holding farther treaties with the 1 Creeks and Cherokees, for the pur ■ pose of fulfiling the compact with i Georgia, and a treaty having been concluded with the Creek- the pre ceding year, it was deemed expe dient by the President, to maky 11.> next (fort with the Cherokees.- This was accordingly done, by th. appointment of M essrs. D G Camp bell and James Mem wet her, as Con. mis-ioners, on the part of the Unit, i States. They repaired to the Cl.ero ke country, in October, 1823, and, alter strenuous efforts to prevail on the Cherokees enter into a treaty of cession, they received a positive re fusal. Such was the state of things who. on the Ist of December, 2824, the same gentlemen, authorized as Uni ted States’ Commissioners, and in pursuance of the same object, met the Chiefs oftlic Creek nation al Thle-catn-cha, or Br ken Arrow, the seat of the National Council of the Creeks At this Council the same refusal was given by the Creeks as had been before received from the Cherokes. “So long,” saj <• Colonel Campbell, in his letter t< the S cretary of War of Bdi January, 1825, “as the negotiation was con ducted with the Council generally,' no answer was received, other than a prompt rejection ol every proposi tion that was submitted.” Not feeling authorized to con clude a treaty, with a portion o the Chiefs, the commissioners ad journed the Council on the 1 th December; and Colonel Camp bell was appointed to repair to Washington, to endeavor to pro cure from the President permiss ion “to convene the Chiefs within (Im’ limits of Georgia, to n. gotiate with them exclusively, if thought proper, or inclusive of a deputa tion of Chiefs from tiie upper towns if such a deputation should pre sent bemselves, and evince a de. sire, to negotiate to further e •ctenf.’’ On the arrival of Mr Camp bell, he mklrc'Si d a letter to t le I Secretary of »Vdr asking dir sanction of the Presidi ie ior a treaty “t be signed by Pie C .i -Is within tne limits of Geoigia, pro vided such treaty be aecoinpani- d by the assent of the other Chiefs, that the land to be abandoned by the emigranting party, snail be im mediately subject to the disposi tion of the Government.', io this proposal, the Presi dent, Mr. Monroe, declined ac ceding, but authorized a renewal of negotio:ions with the whole na tion. ( See document No. 72, p. 38, vol -1, 2d, session, 18th, Congress.) A me ting of the I Chiefs was accordingly summon ed for the th February, at Indian Springs, within the limits of Geor gia On the 10th of the month, the Commissioners met the Chiefs and Warriors, and explained their object. On the evening of tre same day the Commissisners held a separate council with a part of the Chiefs and Warriors of nine of the towns, chiefly within the limits of Georgia. On the morning of the i l th, at th public council, O poth-le-yoholo, the Speaker of the nation, (Mclntosh having been deprived of that office at the Brok en Arrow,) replied to the talk oi ' the Commissioners, on behalf of Big Warrior, the Head Chief of ; the nation, and told them that no ' treaty could then be made for the cession of lands, and invited the , Commissioners to a meeting at i Broken Arrow, t • be held three months afterwards, at he xpense. 91 the UfHiou. He deplored to be the only answer he was au thorized to give, and that he should go home the next day. On the following night, the Chiefs and Warriors of the Cussetas and Sco woogluos left their encampment, and went home, by orders of the Big Warrior, communicated by Opothlcyoholo, as is stated by the latter. On the 12th, a treaty was signed with the Mclntosh party. During its execution, Opo thleyoholo repeated his protest on the part of the Big Warrior, and accordingto the statement of Ham bly, the interpreter, warned Me. Intosh of his danger in breaking the law. A large number of signatures is appended to the Treaty, but it is alleged, both by the National Coun cil convened the following Autumn and by the Indian Agent, in a let ter written the day after the signa ture of the Treaty, that they are, with the exception of Mcln tosh, and perhaps two others, Chiefs of low rank, or nit Chiefs at all. Mclntosh himself is stated to have been but the fifth in rank in the Nation. Among the docu ments accompanying the report, will be found a list of Chiefs pre sent, who refused to sign ; a list of such of the signers as are Chiefs ; and a description of all the other signers, made in public Council, by the Head Chiefs of the Nation. It is apprehended by tne Com mittee, that the inspection of these ■’ocuments can leave no doubt that 'ho Treaty was signed not merely by a small and unauthorized party o. the Creek Nation, but by a minor;!', of the Chiefs who attended the Coun cil. On the dav following the signa ture ol tiie Treaty, Coi. Crowell the kgent, addre sed a letter to the Secretary of War, as follows. “Indian Springs, Feb. 13. 1825. The Il n. John C. Calhoun, Secretary of J Tar. Sir: In compliance with instruc lons receive d from Col. Campbell, while in Washington City, 1 notified ine Chiefs oi this Nation to meet :h • United States’ Commissioners at .his jfface on the 7th instant, for the »urpose of treating with th .m tor their lands. Your letter of the Btb, enclosing a copy of the instructions of the Com missioners, did not reach me until the 6th. On the arrival of the Com missioners, I informed them 1 was ready to obey their orders on all points touching the negotiation, ana cheerfully co-operate with them m fleeting the object of their mi ion. Ye terday a Treaty was signed b_, Mclntosh and his party alone. Bu i ig fully convinced that this Treaty indirect opposition to the letter and spirit of the instructions, which i have a copy of, 1 feel it to he my lounden duly, as the Agent of the Government, to apprise you of it, liat you may adopt such i- vou may deem expedient, as to he ratification: for, if ratified, it may produce a horrid late of things a mong these unfortunate Indians. It t is p iper to remark, that, with the •Keep..on of Mclntosh, and per haps t vo others, the signitures to bis Treaty are either Chiefs of low < ide, or not Chiefs at all; which vou can perceive by comparing them totho.-i toother Treaties, and to the receipts for the annuity; and these signers are from eight towns ml ~ when there are fifty-six in the X ition. I beg vou to be assured that 1 ui sued, strictly, your instructions in .elation to this negotiation; and al though the Treaty has not been made in conformity with the instruc tions of which 1 have bean furnish d, yet 1 think it can be, at no dis tant day, to the entire satisfaction of tne Government. I have made these hasty remarks from conviction of duty, to apprise you of the man ner in which it was accomplished; •md, il it be thought necessary, I can give you all the particulars pending tiie negotiation. A deputation oi Head Chiefs are desirous of visiting Washington, to have a full and fan understanding relative to. 1 have the honor to be your obe dient servant, JOHN CROWELL, dgent for Indian .Ifairs.” Shortly after the writing of thi letter, the Agent repaired in person to Washington After his departure and on the 23d of the month, a Council of the Creek Nation was held at Broken Arrow, in which a protest against the Treaty of the In dian Springs was adopted, and the lists above alluded to were prepared. These documents, however, did not reach Washington till after the rati fic.ition of the Treaty. The Treaty, meantime, was expe dited to Washington. The Pre-i dent of the United States, then about to retire, in a few days, from office referred the Treaty to the Senate with the letter of the Indian Agent ibove alluded to. It is out of tin •ower of this Committee, and no vitbin their province, to assign th* reasons which prevented the Seme jffom being influenced by the repre- sentations made by the Agent, as ■to the itiode in which the Treaty had been effected. No testimony, with in the knowledge of the Committee, had arrived from the Creek Nation, io corroborate his statements; and on the 3d of March, the last day of the Constitutional existence of the then organized Senate, the advice and consent of that body were giv en to its ratification. It was accord mgly ratified by the President on the 7th of March, under the unsuspect ing impression that the Treaty was negotiated in good faith, with com petent parties. On the next day, the protest of the Chiefs assembled in Council at Broken Arrow, and the documents accompanying it, were received at Washington, by the A gent, and submitted to the Depart ment of War. General Mclntosh, after signing the treaty, repaired, in company with Etome, Tustunuggee other Chiefs to Milledgeville, and received an audience from the Governor of Geor gia, in the Executive chamber.— They stated, among other things, their apprehensions of hostility from the part of the nation opposed to the treaty, and invoked the protec tion of the United States and of Georgia. This protection was promised them on the part of Geor gia, by the Governor, who also inti mated to them, that, “in the business of the treaty, the President could not but consider it the act of the nation, provided the whole country was ceded ; that what ought to be considered the act of the nation would still be a question; that the Government might be quite well dis nosed to consider the act of Mcln tosh and his friends as such a one.” The day after this audience, a let ter was written to Governor Troup •>y four of the Chiefs of the Mcln tosh party expressing their fears that attempts would be made to put in to execution the Law of the Pole at Springs, which made it “ capital for any person in authority among the Creeks to cede away their lands without the consent of the nation.” Accordingly, on the 26th instant, Colonel H. G. Lamar, the Aid of the Governor of Georgia, wps de -natched with a talk to the Chiefs i d Headmen of Cuseetah and Took au-batchee, the former being the town of Little Prince, who succeed 'd Big Warrior as the Head Chief )f the whole Creek Nation, and the htter, the town of Opothlcyoholo, the Speaker oi' the Nation. Coi. Lamar met the Chiefs ofthese towns n separate Councils held in each. Either, at this time, and while they had not heard of the ratification of the treaty, and the consent given by Mclntosh to survey the lands, they ■ntertained no designs of violence against Mclntosh, or they chose to deceive Col. Lamar as to their inten tions : or, finally, the talk of the Little Prince was misconceived by Col. Lamar, which is stated by Ham bly, who interpreted between them, 'to have been the case. He returned perfectly satisfied with their state of feeling, on the subject of the treaty, and expressed the opinion, that when the ratification of the treaty was known, they would acquiesce. On the 21st of March, Governor Troup issued his proclamation, an omic ing l he ratiticat ion of the treaty. On the 29th he addressed a letter to Mclntosh, requesting his permission to survey the territory ceded by the treaty. On the 6th of April, Mcln tosh answered the Governor that the Chiefs (meaning those of his party) would convene on the 10th and that Ue would submit to them the proposal to survey the land On the 12th of April, the consent of Mclntosh and his party to the sur vey was given in a letter to the Gov ernor, nqthe following terms: “ Some differences existing between the present agent of the Creek Nation and myself, and not having any con fidence in his sdvice, I have deter mined to act according to the dic tates of lay best judgment, which re sults in the determimnation to agree to the request ot' your Excellency, m giving my consent, and in behalf of the nation who signed the treaty, their consent, that the land lately ceded to the United States at the In dian Springs, may be run off’ and sur veyed whenever you may, or the General Government, think proper to do so. ‘ li’ the General Government of the United States have no objection and tli9 agent of the Creek nation, with the party he influences, does not make any objection or opposition (o running and surveying the land, myself and the Chiefs and Indians who were in favor of the late treaty, do not object. We give our con sent.” Inconsequence of the conditional nature of this assent to the survey, the following letter was, on the 18th April, w ritten by Governor Troup to General Mclntosh : Milledgeville, 18th April|lß23. Dear General : In one of your late letters you say something about the censent of the United States, or if the agent and hostlies du not make • Pray explain to me your meaning, \\ e have nothing to do vith the United States, ortho agent r the hostlies, in this matter ; all we ■ ant is the consent of the friendly ndians who made the treaty. It ° w inted the consent of the Unit ; M StateSj we could ask it 4 . Volume I I. Y’our Friend, * G. M. TROUP." Without, how ver, waiting for an . answer to this letter, and on the same, day on which it was written, Gover nor Troup issued his proclamation, stating that “ the assent of the In dians lad been obtained to the run ning and survey of the country,” and calling the Legislature together to take the proper measures for those objects. To the above letter Mclntosh re plied in the following manner : “Creek Nation, 25 April 1825. Dear Sir : 1 received your Excel lency’s request yesterday, dated the 18th instant, and hereby state to you that my only meaning was not to act contrary to stipulations made be tween our Nation and the United States’ Government; and we do here by absolutely, freely, and fully give our consent to the State of Georgia, to have the boundary belonging to said State surveyed at any time, the Legislature ot Georgia may think proper, which was ceded at the late ts. aty of the Indian Springs. Sign ed in behalf of th nation, and by the consent of the Chiefs of the same. I have the honor to be, with great esteem, yours, respectfully, WILLIAM M’INTOSII.” It is here necessary to observe, that Mclntosh, in addition to the license assumed, in this letter, of speaking in behalf of the Creek Na tion, of which his party formed but a small minority, appears to have been guilty of deception, m reference to the views of that party. At a Council with them, heid by General Gaines, the General was informed that Mclntosh never consulted them on the survey, and that they never gave their consent. It may here be proper to endeavor to ascertain more particularly, the relative strength of the two parties, as far as existing data enable it to bo done. B v the documents forward ed from the Council, held on the 23d February, it appears that the Chiefs who signed the treaty were rom the following five towns . Coweta, Broken Arrow, New Yauco, Sand Town, Hitchetee. But it is to be observed, that the Chiefs from Broken Arrow could have had no authority to sign on behalf of that town , for the representative of the IT ad Chi sos that town and one of the Principal Chiefs of that Nation, was present, and refused to sign. From a document prepared in Count oil of the Creek Nation, it appears,- that ot the fifty-two individuals who signed tiie treaty of the Indian Springs, Mclntosh was the only Head Chief, he being the fifth in rank in the Nation ; that five were Chiefs of inferior degree, and these six all of one town, Coweta; the twenty six were officers called Law-menders or Law-makers, but not Chiefs' fourteen were broken Chiefs ; four Indians possessing no rank whatever, and two persons wholly unknown to the Council of the Creek Nation*. These individuals were exclusively from eight towns, out of fifty-six, of which the Nation is said to consist. The son of the Big Warrior, and the son of the Little Prince were botfi at the Indian Springs, and refused to sign. The nephew and represen tative of the Chief fourth in rank, Hopoy Hadgo, was present, and rc* fused (o sign. William Barnard, the principal Chief of the Uchees, refus ed to sign. John Stidham, a priu, cipal Chief of the Lower Towns Opothlcyoholo, Chief of the Took aubatchees, with other leading Chiefs forming altogether, it is conceived, a representation of a large majority of (lie Nation, were present, and refus ed to sign. On the day after the death of Mclntosh, General Wyra representsit as the opinion of one of the Chiefs who signed (he treaty, that the party opposed to it number ed four thou.-and warriors, the party friendly not more than five hundred, the former having been increased “by numbers long cloaked und r the garb of in ndship,”—who, since the death of Mclntosh, joined the bes ide party. The Indians of the trea ty-making party, who received rar lions in Georgia, did not exceed a bout four hundred, men, women, and children, although it appears, from some of the documents submitted, that efforts were made to increase the number. The intell gence of the Proclama tion of the Governor of Georgia, relative to the survey, reached the Chiefs of' the Nation assembled to receive their annuity, and seemed, -ays the Agent, in a letter to the Se cretory of War, 27th April, 1825, to add to their melancholy and distress. They denied that their consent to the survey had ever been asked or given; and those residing in the ceded territory particularly request ed the Agent to make to the Secret tary of \\ ar their decided objections to the surveying of the lauds, until they could remove from them. — They also asked permission to send, a deputation to Washington the fol" lowing Winter, for the purpose of understanding the views of the Gov« ernment relative to their futun pros pects. It was at this period, probably in consequence of the news received of the ratification, and the projected survey, that, in obedience to the or, der of the Little Prince, as Head Chief of the Natioiq direction