Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

r n Hi in-11 iii—■w»i inini>ini—i» LOU THE CONSTITUTIONALIST. iiBORGIA .'INI) THE SUPREME COURT. • •• pjj i.iV- 4 <• >rj vifh thi# ici'. learned Ti > >«n ” SIXJK the establishment of the Kedera C nstuution, d; ;re It m not been a more par . fc . «ccu■•fence, in our civil his**»ry,■ (J,,ui *ie i :cenl dcr'udon of the Supreme C"Urt, of Mir U ii' • I S’a'es, in the case o. the Miniontry Woßoicsran. Year sltei year, the elements ol 11 ">1 1 • i< :il expl ioi have been accumulated under our feet the train ban been laid—the match itsedf ho* i) cn finally kindled ; and kindled alasl by M e who minister in thu templo ot justice. I Oil! pdinted ‘ol d i.c tUd. temple! VVidij »u: * prist! ml, no longer worthy of any.j lit the altars of discord. In dus solem;i P ■ me if expectation, while the shock is yetj go ponded, let us endeavour calmly, but (•trlcs-dy, to exhibit in its true character,! this si liter decree. We cannot believe, that oir countrymen, those whose lathers m r ched shoulder to shoulder, with our own, into th* b attics of liberty, will raise fratri cide! hands, to sus ain thr illusory forms of perverted and insulted justice. Che essence of the opinion delivered from toe bench, is a denial that Georgia posses ses Jurisdiction, over a district ol country, which though now occupied by the Cheio keen, ie included within her geographical limits ; and coupled with this denial, is the assertion ol a right in the U, States, to resist any attempt of Georgia, to exorcise that jurisdiction. 4n examining tho opin ion, wo shall not pursue the sinuous pro gress of the Court ; hut detail in what ap pears a mire natural the titles ol Georgia to the jurisdiction in dispute, ert coun cil ig as they successively arise, those which have been adduced in op position. The history of Georgia as a political en vercignty, is to be derived (mtn her colo nial charter, and other acts of ihc British Q.'/eminent preceding the 4.1 i ofju'y 1776 —from the Declaration of Independence— the oiiginal Articles of Confederc. ion—-and the existing Constitution ot the U. Slates Without wasting our lime, in a repetition of unimportant particulars, we shall bm.-fl* extiibit the leading principles, and (acts which relate to the present contieveny. I wnu d be superfluous, t i deduce ih" succes rive boundaries of Georgia, s ep by slop through the tedious verbosity of ctiariers treaties, and proclamations, ft will b «us fifient to stale, v’hat wem her adiniti'd Him. 9, at the era of die U.'S in, i sequenlly c n ' ‘ The r lUiidam -> 1 ... 0.. or nor of Georgia »< ‘ . ;>■*! • *h- I. south a- • . I.l> I■ 1 ,I U . / t'i,t h vi.U viCi . • H ooVth c ■ in, oi ; • die said river, to Us muice ; from thence in a due west course, to the river Mississippi, ai d down the said stream of the Mississippi, (o the la nude thirty-one degree* ninth; from the-me in e due t-asl courso, to the river A palachicola, or ChatahotM’ ace, and from the fork of die s;id river Apalachicola, where the Chatshouchee and Flint rivers meet, in a direct line to the lie,id, or source, of the southernmost stream of the river St Mary’s, jind cion; the course of the said river St. Mary’s, to the Atlantic ocean, and from thence to the mouth, or i-det of the river Savannah.” This colony and twelve others, mi the 4 h of July 17/6, declared their in dependence in the following terms :—" We ’’hcrcferc the rep. esents five-. ol he Dm ed States ol Amo ic a, in o■nei ,»1 Congi ess as r.ernbicd, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, loi dio rectitude of our in icntions-—Do i the name and by Ilia au thority, ot die md people of these colo nies, solemnly publish and declare, that .ii.se united colonies are, and of right ought so be free and independent suites, that they ti ; absolved from all llegiattce, to the li.i --t sb crown, and that ad potitic.il connex ion between them, and the state of Great Bri air, i* and ought to b ■ totally dissolv ed ; and that aa free and independent suites, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, es'abldh com merce, and to do all other acta, and things, which independent stales may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on ho protection id Ih vine Brovid«if;o, we mutually pledge to each other, our liv'*, our far tunes, & our sacred honour.” livery colony thus, nor only as aertod its own freedom, and independence; but acknowledged, and bsund i'self (osup >'rt, llie freedom ».nt ! independence of eve -v other. That it was the individual inde- V Midcace, of each colony, thus declared, *;n.i guarantied, we shall not stop to prove, b i-oiim it has unt been denied. Between “ 3th of July 1778, and the 2d of March !7->\, the same colonies, now become indc nendr.nt state*, success!'dy acceded to '* A'- i ' 's of Coiifederad u and Perpetual Union,* .it which the second is expressed tn thf fol.owng terms :— *■ K ish state re r 1 ") frei d- n, and indi f *' e ' 1 !t ’ "very power .jurisdiction and is a it by this ronfedi'<« ion ex -1 tbs I ird States in A ’ Tins corre ponds ■ r> 1,1 j‘ declaration ol 1776, ex > 1 ' 'tain* the trim “ hovpi ' ’• isd w ■ onplicl in the oitißr, ay be -v • freedwis and ind.-pen ni»nr.e.” In th e articles, the only I ? *P' ,A, *r to “<», relative to the sub 11 ■ diusexpi . B 'd The '' ' 1 ' '-'"ng'iss aajiinblcd sin 11 i " i • s ’• n d exclusive right, a.d inwer, of reg’ilahnj the trade, and maoag- I og all ullhirs with the Indians, not mum rrs of any of the States ; provided, that he L gi.da'ive right of ntiy S ate, widiin : s own limite, lie not infi inged oi violated.” '1 is obvious that this, it in any degree a lij'ialification of sißle sovereignty, is so jiligbt, as scarcely to be worthy ot ettima- I ion. Alexander Hamilton in the Federal ■■•;t top ments it is a vicinal nullify. The nvcrcignty of Georgia then, is clearly tra- I ed up to the time, when stio adoptfil die jFederal C institution ; to the examination i f which therefore, wc shall now proceed. The preamble of that instrument declar**, ( bat the Conititution is ordained, and ea ahlishc-d, by “ the peop'e of tin U. Stales,” | Some sopnfieial reasoners have imagined, hit die people referred to, are the p'optc of die Uni'od State* generally, regarded as hi single mass of population. Very little in fl •clion however is necessary, to dissipite the illusion. The people as a single mass, .b ill no noli icdl . xistence under th articles I t J |of Gonfederation—they did not form the ’ convention—and finally they h d no agen ( cv in ra'ifying the Constiiution itself, which iivm submitted to, awl adopted by the peo lytic of tddh State separalelyi The vote of ‘{the people in one state, han no power over !rtny other state ; anil what is perfectly con > elusive —alter the Constitution wont into operation, by the ratification of nine states, ! {die re maining four, if they had so pleased, ‘ might have continued separate, lice, inde ‘ipendcnt, and sover.dgn. The members of die new confederacy then, acceding to it as ' sovereigns, not dr*gged into it as fragments inf a general population, lost by the change, only so much of their sovereign rights as I!they had relinquished or delegated, to ih-« Geuciul Government. This implication ' though sufficiently obvious, it was 'hough? ‘ proper to fortify, by the following amend ment of the Constitution : “ The powers - not delegated to the Uni fed Spates by the -'constiiution, nor prohibited by it to tlie 1 1state.* arc reserved to the stales respective j ly, or to the people.” Nor will übe irn -jproper to mnmk ; that •* the people” to ill whom in the disjunctive, these pawns were i rrserv d, are no: he people of the U ited n Slates generally ; bul the people of each > sta'e separately. The former delegated no poweis ; had no power* to delegate ; were. d not at the form t'.ian of tha constitution a i- political endty ; and even now, have » po litical oxiMcoce, only in relation to pow"- i which. have been delegated Tl - United ' i ”-• •>.»’ 1 i from be, Vi7' yv ei wu o, oi wmatituliou, as • .. s.dt Uorgrtssnnß *i a Judge ar coroUtry too ■... the pre «, tha: politically speaking, in matters -fid the sphere of the comrtituiinn, earh - si«'e Is lo.relgn to every ots’aic ; and i the United States foreign to all. The re t served powers of Georgia belong to the \ state, or (he people of the state } «nd any • interforenev with their cxeicise, hy another i xtete, er by the United Slates, is a f>rtig . interference. Tlie only modification o< . »ta<e sovereignty by the constitution, in re » lation to Indians, is expressed in the fid-, j lowing words :—•• The congress shall have ? power to regulate com nerce with foreign , nations, and among the several states, and . with the Indian tribes. ” On this provision i it will be unnecessary to dwell. The Court r ilse'f declares, that such a concession, when , made by the Indians, is not to b# deemed a -jrelinquistiment of sovereignty : and we may L . presume, that tlie same terms employed by Ija State, ar 1 as little subject to snob a cm s'ruclion. Georgia theu, with this alight a qualification, remained not li'ss sovereign -jailer the adoption of the Constitution, than -ishe had been before. -J Let us ouw enquire, .what is implied by ;!the simple assumption, and recognition of t'sovereignty. Those who assume ir, rlaim r the tight to govern within tbeir own houn .idaries, accoitlmg to their own pleasure; . those who recognize it, disclaim the right, • to interfere in the government of the coun try, whose sovereignty is lecognized. The iabsti act, right or wrong of what is done, i within the limits of a sovereignty, is not n . subject of practical consideration, for 'hose ,by whom the sovereign is acknowledged. .jU Devonshire in England, Normandy in .(Francs, Dutches# in New-York, or Buck* in Pennsylvania, should complain of tho op x pressions of their rsspeefive g ivernmonis, i or even claim independence, it i- sufficim . It plain, that neither their complaints, no*- ; pretensions could even bo formally ex uniit ed, by States who admitted the sovereignty .j >f England and Fiance, of N >w-Y.irk and .!Pennsylvania This i» the general princi pic which regulates national society. The , Austrian dues net accuse the Tu k, of op i pressing Albsma, o Uoamelia with exces ! sive exactions—Frussii does not vindicate . against Austria, 'he rights of her Hungaii a fl t> provinces—nor lines France deem it n«- ijeessary to enquire, whether the Spanish I tmg re*pec s the privileges of the Catalan*. It is well that »uch is tha usage. Much [wrong is doubtless done in the world; but I ‘ar greater evils would ensue, it gover. ment# . I ke political Qiixotte*, taking the highroad in quest of adventures, should couch a lance iptiint every injustice real or imaginary, |(hal 'hey encountered by ihe way, Bet the enlhu»ias!s medita nen thi-- rememb uii g •hai he present .dispute is not concerning ■ « in riy-ic merit* i f the policy ol Georgia tow mis he Cherokces; but ooncorniug the ight of ayy other power, to iutirfere be tween t e parties. Sue i being th* nature ol sovereignly, that it excludes all forsign authority from its own domain} to determine how fir the exclusion • should • pirate, in the preuent instance we t need only advert to the geographical bmn t daries ot Georgia, which on the fourth day ’of July, 177 C were such as already have Mbt-en quoted. 'I 10 country within those lim tiits, was tit. only country kn » ■■ n in the po - li'ica. calendar. ■■ the ’‘colony o! Georgia.”, •iVViitin therefor*, toe colony ol Georgi "v»s ■ tie lor ‘ a free, and independent S ate, • :li se wliorec g .zed her an suen, admitted t that tlutv hid no right to utteifere, with the i e>; : i» • nf government, within those limits • (I ■ hey did nrt admit this, they admi led , nothing; sin■ x :ept ihe ountiyside - scribed, t .ere no province on earth, to ’ which the recognition could app y. I s , bmit dot.• was t! e very essence of ns d fini ■ tint,—with what Rrgtjiti .its c n the Court i courue balance this historical deduction of ' .eigntv, and gi 'y nphical delineation ol ! its exierrt ? Cos tlie prerect, we may piss by the pre j liminary in'iir.a ion, that the Cherolcees are! i under the protection of 'he U. Stales. It is • not tier haps to oe regarded as an argument, i but it.i her as th .• formal unfurling of the ban ner of ihe Courin token ut the sole, which. fit had dr ermio. Ito espouse. Lai u < pro i ceeti to ihe- main principle which it has as earned. We are told, “that the U. States, ijSucccGded to all the claims <f Geu Brit , ain, bulb territorial and poll tea); bu' no at , jl l- rr,pt so fur as i* known, has been made to ■ (enlarge them.” The Court seems to be far i more partial to speeches ot Mr. Superintend ; dsnt S’uart, and procl mitions ut Governor' ’.Gage, than to the great elementary state ynpers of our own government ; N >t a word t,i-i r.aid of lit- (ml and uruqmv .cat claims as 1 ser'ed by each stale, and recognized by all i otiiera, in 'he SJ. olaration of I idependence, ' and the Articles of confedeia i n; yet we, have seen, that in those venerable docp-i » met.is, every s u'c assumed for itsejl. and' i guarantied to every other, an unqualified! • sovereignty within its existing colonial litn-l its. Do vvhai. ,urp«»e arc we told, that the ■ rights of ihe states iire to be ineasutcd byi t those which belonged to Great Britain? It! •in any case, Great Britain was'not absolute-! 1 jly fO'Ver.’ go, within Hie limi's of a colony; it! 1 1 most he evident, that when the colony was! o converted into an independent sovereign! v s'a'.c, it (fid not succeed to her power, be' 1 0 assumed that, and as monk • cessary to r " to in was et»* , » ,>> 1 1 o i.-x ib> : s ea in ire «;.-uo • b-.i-a•;( .1 _. -u m tor any exigencyi •! i'< argument, let os suppogi that Ge-.-r-l ■ gia diil succeed, to the claims of the BiitLhl « government as represented, and see whether 1 even in their own admissions, and exparte' I retv. ences, it * dslibte pro< ( cannot bu found, • that their cone usioos are erroneous. The Court .'droits, that "tho crown*’so '.f ir, "interfered wi h the internal affrirs of jihe I idi; ms.” as to “keep nut toe agents of! ! jforeign powers, who as traders or otherwise, '(intgo seduce hem into foreign alliances.” ,N:>w if the ki. g ■tssumod the right to keep tout these agen s, for the purpose of prevent !jing he alliances, doesdt not follow a for : Uori } that he assumed the right ot prevent ' '"g the alliances themselves? Since then 'jGeorgia has succeeded to the claims of the (crown, by what authority tio*& the govern -1 merit of the U, States contract alliances with] l i the Cherokeeg f The Consti'utiou permits it, only to regulate comrifterce with them, and br implicalioo to make such compacts, as ' may be necesdiry for the execution of that power, tfivery treaty with them therefore. *! which transcending that necessity, stiptl for ihe right* and ob'ig ition# of a geue- ( rat protection, comes under ihe head of those r alliances, proscribed by the very reasoning iof the bench; lor what is such a treaty, but • an alliance with a power lo'eign in Geor ’ gia ? Let us now examine, the principal • psssuge quoted from the royal proclamation *|") 1'63. These are its word9---‘'and we 1 ’i do further declare it to bacur royal will and 1 J jpleasuie, for the present as aforesaid, to re-' 1 ’i serve under our sovervignty, protection and 1 J dominion for the use of the said Indians, all *i the lauds and territories” "lying to the west ■. ward •( the sources, of the rivers wh'ch fall 1 into the s»a from the west, and northwest as • aforesaid; ami we do hereby strictly forbid, on pain of our displeasure, alloar loving sub* t j ’Cts from making any purchases or settls "merits, whatever, or taking possession of any! juf the lands above reserved, without our spe-, ' cial leave and licence for that purpose first' [;obtained.” The king then reserves those .lands ami territories for the use nfiht- Indi ans—not recognizing any puli ica! right or 5 |Ho pii«ion of thaiis, but by his royal will . \and plea3ure~~no permanently, bu for the present; ami xpressly under his sovereign ly, protection and dominion. Could latui-^ ’ 1 i.v.r.if bavif mas a quotation more suici [ ■| dal ? Q ran Georgia the powers implied in; l j*his, and v/iut would remain fsr the rest of ‘ the world ? Comment could only weaken 1 the argument. ,i Those who are conversant with the an-, ijnals of Kutopejn colonies, will probably not| jenter ain, a higher respect for the history,1 1 ; than for ihe lo.jc of the bench. At another'l Illime, the subject may occupy our attention. 1 r i Bui for the piesenf, we s'loll declin 1 exam-! 1 ;j"'ing the historical evidences of European'! "vereignty, in America, for the following \ , reasons; lit. The political rights of the) 1 States, when they coa*ed 'o be colouies,) 1 wore founded on the mu ual assumptiun andj* ( guaranty of unqualified independeccr, or; 1 sovereignly, without any reference to the 1 1 degree of power previously posa sseti by J Great B'itain. sd, If Great Britain had limited herself in that sovereignty, to which) it is alleged shit the states have succeeded ; it is clear, that excluding as she did, all n j ra .coos iiitervenuoo in her colonial afihirs, she wnubl never have permitted any lor-, eign judica urn, rn decide wha't was the ex-j ten ,of her seif imposed linitta inns. <J • 11 - srqaently those siftt«s v/hich are her stip ! posed mold not suffer the So preme Court to interpret the canons of their local sovereignty, on a topic not sub mitfed to u by the Constitution. L't the; Judges aseeriajii what powers Georgia has relinqui-hcd, nr deleg t ed to the Federal Guv. rnment—•'hat is their concern ; not wiat powers she originally possessed—for wlta-ever their origin, that is her concern! alone.—3d. If the word “ claims” was in 1 tended to signify those power* only, which! had been actually ex'rcised by Great Bri |fain ; that term did not express all the powers, which site possessed in <elation to 'he Indians. For in addition to those which ' had been exhreised, she undeniably posses- I sed likewise the sovereign prerogative ol ! remodelling her own ins'i'utiuns—of tier- I cising other powers which had previously l lain dormant—of changing at her pleasure t .the whole symein of her Indian government i Without challenge from any foreign state ; I in the same manner that she might have al- j term! her revenue or road law*. To this t prerogative also, if to any. Georgia musbi have, succeeded, and this alone is sufficient t to ex i' goish the whole dispute, concerning t the extent of her claims. 4h. By the < shewing of the Court, itself, in its own his- 1 toncel exposition, Great Britain to whose i claims the Bta.es are said to have succe ded, { did iissTt her sovereignly, protection and t dominion over the vary country in question, j lo Court did not think proper to make , a general review, ot the public acts of Geor-'f gia in relation to the Cherokee.-. 1 *; atid we), shoo d not have discerned the necessity of:, I djowng it, in such a digression. When ] rve have leisure to ramble so far from the point, v/e shall probably extend our excur-i| sion, to ihe statute books, and other hislo-i; !ricul monuments, ot more than one mem Iber of the national family. Whatever! j rights, titles, or privilec»‘« G • s vereign, either b-_ ... ‘ f . .veu to Uk •' ' • ~• j,. a..i;,!«!* , ‘J ' .. .. aC-J ( extovi. Lvoii it | oiheers or aaaernbucs, .mistaking' ( jtheir duty, have ever approved oracquieg-u jC.ed in tile usurpations of the Federal Go- 1 ) ! vernment, theii error would be no authori'y |, jagainsi ihe state. They were commission || I' n a to exercise and maintain its powms, pot g ve them sway. T ovi. g thus sefc, that the soveieignty of G orgu is sustained, by the D -olaraiioni of Independence, the Articles of Confedera tion, the Cons notion of the United States, , and even by the acknowledged claims of the British crown, to which it is alledged ) that we have succeeded ; let ua whether there is any process, by which the|, Legislative or treaty majdng powers of the• ■ Federal government, c»n have altered our!j political charac'er—The Legislative may|, ue speedily dispatched. Only those laws of J the U. States made in pursuance ol the con- < stitUiion, are deciaied to be the supreme - jiavso! toe laud. When Congress passed , *n act for the regulation of trade, [commerce] . "and intercourse” with the Indian tribes; it , was guil 'y «i tier of u urpation, or of an idle ! 'autoiogy; since the conatjtu'ion delegatee. 1 , the tight to regulate eomwerts with , such intercourse as was neccs'arily implied i.> that term. Ihe same principle is applica- , jb'c to every similar case—the point is too t plain for disputation.—Has the treaty mak- ’ mg power greater latitude ia this respect , than (ho L ; gislative ? When (he .severs! American states unit- , ing (or that purpose, formed a distinct Fe- » deral Government, th<jy placed a new mcra-it ber in the society of nations. At its birth's it acquired the privileges, sad incurred the 1 obligations, of that rational law which de-'n fines the rights, and regulates the inter- 1 course of all. The constitution docs not e bestow on it any specific diplomatic capa- i cities; but declines m the general, that cer- t tain functionaries shall exercise the treaty t making power. Those who r-ake treaties',)t must of course determine with whom they t are to be made. The President therefore] with the concurrence of two thirds of they senate, in his treaty making capicny, might; t recognize the sovereignty of Martinique;of'( Jain iica, and of Cuba; but the government ] by taking measures conformable (o the re- jt cognition, would unquestionably give just e cause c, v.ar, to France, to England and to i ’ Spain. Considered in the abstract, theii treaty making power, by recognizing (he in-! 'dependence of the Cherokeeg, might invite the United States lo assume a S’inilar tile relation to Georgia, But while com-i* !mon sense, and common justice prevail,! ! there are which must forever) 1 preclude such a possibility. Th -de:lara- ‘ j l,on °* the 4h ot July 1776. in which (he f thirteen united colonies mutually guaranti ? ed to each of (he number, i»s freedom and|' independence, is still obligatory, as is also) 1 the implied guaranty of individual sover J eignty, between the same parties contained ' v in the articles of confederation. Nur plain ly as this is deducible from the documents;' 1 themselves, has it been le r t lo a mere infer-! 8 cue l ’. By the fiist section, of the ninth ar-j 11 tide, of the constitution it is declared ; that 1 0 .. J I H * Thia article already tketc.hfl<), whf *n th* rrriter look-* • 4 ed over th« opinio# cf Mr, Justice M’Lenn. !♦ Ji-J oot seem to require to alt».rntio» of hin pit? | All debts contracted scd irgsgemenl* (entered into bpfnre the adoption of this cod' stituifon, thali be as valid sg&iost.tlie Uni* (ted Stß'es unrirr (his constitut'd), as undef j the confedera fion.” In (be rec* rds »I s he j nation, there is not an engegen eD* m '' so jltmu, pi*si ive arti explicit, ihsn tl »■ "’i icli is contained in (he Dt claration of Incl'pen ilence. Can a treaty, incompatible with (lie validity of (ha* erg gen enl, be consi dered as binding. T ieaties eie he s-U| nms 'law of (be leno ; but what (rea ics ? ‘ nil treaties made ot to be made indet ha au thority of the United States-\V hi! is the authority of the United Stale, ?—the just power of the United States-—that de legated to them by the constitut'd —not an extra cons itutienal p, wcr, whose acts the 'citizen would riot be bound to ibey, ■ v •he Court have any tight to sustain. /d~ mi* for a moment the contrary MJppas - - 'ion, that a treaty nai abrogate (! tcm sU tu?ion; and what a torrent ot absurdities, at once overwhelms us! By a compact with' his Holiness the f‘i pc, nil public worship ia Louisiana, might bo prohibited, units* con formable t o the ritrg of the Homan Catholic Church, Dun Miguel might oecure himself against the republican rudeness of the Ame rican press, by a provision thet nothing re lative to Portugal should be published in our journals, with out the imprimatur of his con sular agents--leaving the ca&e* of pontiff and king, to the consideration of the Court ; as they arc not likely to receive that hoot ut from any body els*- ; we shall pass on to our conclusion—-that every, treaty incompatible with the engagement which guaranties the freedom, independence, sovereignty of Geor gi i, within her colonial limits, is contrary to the constitution, and consequently void. This summary exposition of the treaty making power, would be ampiy sufficient/; but let us try what deductions mar be mode, under this head of rhe sohj ct, from the car- ' dmal principle of the Court; that Georgia haa succeeded to the claims of G. Britai;;—- Is there a reasonable creature who believes that Great Britain would have allowed France, Spain, or any other »owr- ■ treaties wi i> ii r - r:,\ V ’V; 10 protect t cm. jg-i.-nt ; L V; K-:ecuMve acU of the nimhe--.. country ? nut it so !> opens, icat we aie r' f* 7 *!' n.-e ■ ji r.?3S*n.'Rg r-■ uid 41 -‘f ‘ r ' 1 t- <osl Georgia and oifier colonies; but she preserves the two Canadas, in which there are various tribes or nations ot Indians. Sht retains in those provinces the righto, to which the Court asserts that Georgia h s succeeded here.—Grave and learned Judges ! Darnels ot the F edcral judgment seat! hold up your iiunds—your faces too if it be possible,'and le.t us whalher upon your consciences you, e-eheve, that the United S ates migh j us Uy >erni treaties with Canadian Indians, hire ihose which you design to enforce against Georgia? Blusn i but keep in reserve C im* deeper nut.. The U. States in obtaining Louisiana by cession, succeeded to the claims ofßiance, which according to the Court, were substantially the ssme as thoss of Great Britain. For both France and Spain, the. previous sovereigns, are associated with her in the, class of European discov rers, who are all supposed to have' assumed, similar rights mi relation to their colonial Indians. Smjco that cession, would the United State* ever have permitted England, France, Spain nr any other power, to maintain treaties with ■he Mandans. or Osage*, like those now urged against Georgia i Docs the Court ex pect to avoid the force of the argument, by contending -hat while its doctrine admits a i igf.t, to exclude the intervention of Europe an potentates, it goes no farther ? It co fu tile a discrimination was really cutjtenipla ted; lit us bring it at ouce to a decisive test,, Would the U. Slates have permitted treu ties like those in question, to be rrrintained ** between the Indians of Louisiana; and an Asiatic, African, or Eurnpeo-Americaa potver. Waving an immediate application of the two former oases, which could at pre sent be only theoretical, lef us come to the latter, which exists on our very borders, and is eminently practical, Alunpside of Louisiana lies Mexico, a Europeo-Ameri can p iwer, n confederated republic, a govern ment of precisely the same pedigree, wi h that of the United States. Now, Georgia, supposition has certain cleims in relation to the Cherokees.-thc United States have the same claims in relation to the Indians of Louisiana.---The U. States pretend to the ' right of intervening, between Georgia and the Cherokees— can Mexico intervene be tween the United States and the Indiana of Louisiana? i. ®. can the very same specie* • of government, interfere with the very same species of claims ?--Ha! It is now their bul jfi that menaces our ox---ht them beware cd * the Court J The world has still some of the slaves 'bl; syllables. Mach stress has been laid or the emp oyment of the terms '• nation” and 5 treaty, in transactions with the Indians I- is contended, that ttie application of ths one to an Indian people, and of tne other to a compact entered into with them, im plies an acknowledgment of their political independence. The court would fain turr M this verbal nicety to good account, hv gome thing like the following induction'. The constitution declares that “all tieatiee j wdc, or which -Hnll be made und- r the au hority of the United States, shall be | lupreme law of the lam!.”— Vt Hopewell I in the year 1 r BS, before the adoption of the I constitution, the United States made a ’ ' treaty’’ with the Chcrckees.—That word dj treaty” implying the recognition of t political independence, the cnstituuoo A