Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

by I'iioilvmja vm.s. i;m>. vos,. m. ao. :ss. (A.' Ijc of Anion, I S'..' P. .G. I.U) B £ '.V:SO ; >f, Publisher (Ry Authority,) ofthe Laus of the I nitcd States: Oliice on Circene Street, nearly oppo site the Market. Issued oveiy Tuesday morning,at $3 per annum No subscription taken for less than a year ■nd no paper discontinued, but at the option ot the publisher, until all arrearages are paid. Advertisements conspicuously inserted at the usual rates —those not limited when handed in, will be inserted ’till forbid, and charged accord ingly. CHANGE Os DIRECTION. Wo desire such of our subscribers a$ may at, any time wish the direction of their papers chan ged from one Post Office to another, to inform us, in all rases, of the place to which they had , been previously sent; as the mere order to for- ■ waid them to a different office, places it almost out of our power, to comply, bee utse we have no means of ascertaining the office from which they | at* ordered to be changed, but a search through •ur whole subscription Book, containing several thousand names. POSTAGE. It is a standing rule with this office, as well 1 as all others, that the postage of all letters and communications to the Editor or Proprietor must be paid. We repeat it again,—and re quest all persons having occasion to address its " upon business connected in any way with the i , establishment, to bear it in mind. Peisons ’ , wishing to become subscribers to the Standard es Union, are particularly requested to give their attention to this ; or they will not have the pa- i per foncardcdto them. 1 ~ SPEECH OF Mn. HAYNES, OF GEORGIA. In the House of Representatives. June 21 182.6, I The Resolution calling on the Prcsidcntof the United States Jor injurmation relt- ! live to the Treaty lately concluded u i'.h \ the Chtrokee Indians, being under cor sideration— ( concluded.) Io delivering the opinion of the Comt, ? Chief Justice Marshall observes: “Tie! Court has bestowed its best attention on t Ims' question, and, after mature deliberation, the majority is ot opinion that an Indian tribe; or nation within the United States, is not a foreign State in the sense of the constitution, [ and cannot maintain an action in the court! j of the United St ites.” • • “ A serious additional objection exists to thejurisdiction ! of the Court. Is the matter of the bid the 1 proper subject tor inquiiy and decision ? It seeks to restrain a State from the forcible exercise of legislative power over a neigh-! boring people asserting their independence; ' their right to which the State denies. On 1 the several matters alleged in the bill, (for I example, on the laws making it criminal to i exercise the usual powers of self-govetn- : merit in their own country by the Cherokee i nation,) this Court cannot interpose, at least i in the tor.n in which these matters are pre- < seated.” In reference to the jurisdiction oi i Georgia over the possession of laud by the! 1 Cherokees, Chief Justice Marshall says : “The mere question of r/g/W might, per haps, be decided by this Court in a proper case with proper parties ; but the Court is asked to do more than to decide on the title. The bill requires us to control the legislation of Georgia, and to restrain the exercise of its physical force. The propriety of such! an interposition by the Court may be well ■ questioned. It savors too much of the ex ercise of political power to be within the proper province ofthejudicial department.” In the closing paragraph ofthe opinion of the Court it is observed: “If it be true that the Cherokee nation have rights, this js not the tribunal in which these rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted, and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tri bunal which can redress the past or prevent the future.” The motion for an injunction is deni ed.” in addition to the portions of the decis ion just quoted, in which the Court most emphatically disclaims jurisdiction overany and all the matters brought before it by the bill, it should be remembered that it deci ded, also, that Indian tribes are not foaeigu nations within the meaning of the constitu tion ; and, as a consequence, I assert, with out thej'ear of successful denial, that no trea ties, in the constitutional sense of that term,! could ever have been made by them. Further, the Court declares, “ The Indian territory jis admitted to compose a part of the United States.” Here, let me ask, by what means the United States ever acquired territory as an independent community or Government ? Originally there was no territory ofthe U nited States, in this sense of the term ; nor! is there now any such territory, but whati has been acquired by the voluntary relin- I qiijsliment of the States, or purchase from I mreign nation-. Therefore, the claim on the part of the United States, to cxcbi ive authority over them and Hie territory of the United Slates occupied by them, gives to the United States no such jurisdiction over Indians residing on the tenilory of any State of this Union. Consequently, on these and other grounds, the Government ’ of the United States can set up no such ju risdiction within the limits of Georgia. 1 Further, the Court distinctly intimates that the proper tribunal for the redress of wrongs which have been either already inflicted or apprehended for the future, i; either the le gislative or executive Department of the j Government, neither of which arraigns the conduct of Georgia, or attempts to control it in any way wbatevi r. Tim-, it is .seen, that the Supreme Court, ppon solemn argument on all complaints on ||||e of I the part ot the Cherokee Indians, against j the State of Georgia, disclaim all jurisdic tion over tile subject. But notwithstanding this disclaimer, it may, ami perhaps will be asserted, that although the Court did, in that case, distinctly admits its want ot" ju risdiction, Georgia had deniedits authority, io the cases ol Tassels in 1830, and Graves in 183-1, both Cherokee cases ? What were ; the facts of these cases ? They were ; trie d in the Superior Courts of Georgia, in the same manner in which her own citizens ; are tried before the same tribunals, upon ! the charge of murder, anil that the murder |oi men ol their own race. Each was con , victed, and sentenced to death, in conf’orm- ■ ity to the criminal laws of Georgia. Wor ' then ? A citation was issued in each case 'bearing the sign manual of a judge of the I Supreme Court, requiring the proceedings ! to be sent up to that court lor revisal ami correction. The* convicted murderers were ' sentenced to be executed, in each case, ata period anterior to the next succeeding term ; ofthe Supreme Court; but in both instan ! ees, at days so distant as to give them the i benefit of an application to the clemency of the Legislature of Georgia. That clemen cy was not exercised, and they were execu ted in conformity to their respective senten j ees From this, Georgia has been charg ed w ith the contumacy tow ards the Supreme Court ofthe United States, because her au thorities did not suspend the execution of | murderers, in obedience to the citation of a [judge ol'the Supreme Court. What, then, is a citation, according to the definition of Chief Justice .Marshall himself ? We shall see, by refering to the opinion delivered by him, in the case of Cohens vs Virginia. In that opinion it became necessary for the Court to inquire into toe nature and op eration of a citation, of which so much has been heard since the State ot Georgia disre garded it in the race of Tassels and Graves. Chief Justice Marshall asks, “ Ami w hat is a citation ? It is simply notice to the op posite party that the record is trannsferred to another court where he may appear, or decline to appear, as hi.-judgement or incli nation may determine. As the party wh» has obtained the judgement is out of Court, and may therefore not know that his cause is removed, common justice requires that [ notice ol the fact should be given to him. i But this notice is not a suit, nor has it the i efleet of process. It’ the party does not i choose to appear, he cannot be brought i:i 'to Court; nor is his failure to appear con- ! ' sidered us a default.” 1 have thus brought 1 ! before the committee the Cherokee Chance ' ry case of 1831, and the citations in the ca ses of Tassel and Graves. in the first, the Supreme Court of the ' United Slates disclaimed jurisdiction over I any of the numerous allegations ofthe bill, | allegations embracing every ground ofcon ! sent between the Cherokees and Georgia. ! in the latter, according to the Chief Justice 1 Marshall himself, the citation is a mere no tice, which aiijindividual party may regard or disregard, at his own good pleasure. If, therefore, an individual is not bound to take notice of'a “ citation,” and demean himself accordingly, w hat possible obligation could ' exist on the part oi Georgia to obey it ? It is’nonsense to say she was under any such obligations. 1 have thus travelled over the charge of defence of the Supreme Court by i 1 Georgia, so f ar as.tlie Indians are concerned, and show, that in the case in w hich judge- ' ment has been pronounced, it is not ad- j verse to Georgia ; and with regard to the I “ citations,” they impose upon her no ob ligation, either of respect of obedience, what- ! ever. And now 1 am prepared to assert that ! the State of Georgia is free from all the ai- [ ■ legations preferred against her by the bon- ; 1 orable gentleman, as it regards the Indians. ! 1 have shown that withrespebt to the Creek treaty of 1825, the President ofthe United Slates was the nullifier, and not the Govern ! ment or people of Georgia ; and, in refer- [ ence to the Cherokees, that if treaty existed previous to 1802, which bound the United States to protect, and Georgia to forbear, the exercise of authority over them, these trea- : ties were abrogated by the Government of! the United Slates by the compact entered into with Georgia on the24th of April, 1802, ! surrendering to her all claims to soil and ! jurisdiction w itliin the limits reserved to that I Stale ; and that the law passed on the 30th I of March preceeding, regulating intercourse ' with the Indians, was alike abrogated by : that compact. Os the treaties, so called, which have been entered into with the j Cherokees since 1802, they could not right fully embrace anything at war with the compact of 1802, and in that sense only have they been acquiesced in by Georgia. Il’ the United Stales have wronged the I Cherokees by their obligation to Georgia under the compact of 1802, it is their duty to do them justice ; and in all proper meas ures io be taken here, for that purpose, the Senators and representatives of Georgia will be behind no others in awarding to them whatever justice and cqu ty demand, ! in a maimer the most ample and complete. 1 might have shown, that according to the ! principles laid down by the Chief Justice, jin the Cherokee chancery case, an Indian tribe could not make a treaty ; but I do not now consider thaldiscussion necessary. Having disposed, at least for the present, ofthe allegations of the honorable gentle man against Georgia, as regards her Indi- j an relations, I will now proceed to consider ! ; (he remaining charge of misconduct towards [the missionaries. And here I might con-[ ' trust the conduct of the original ministers of the Gospel, with that ot the individuals been prefered against the Slate of Georgia. 1 But as 1 have been constrained to occupy ! ‘ so much ofthe time ofthe House, and as 1 doubt not but little to tliei; edification, 1 will proceed as rapidly as j canto the com hi-[ siou of my subject. As w ill appear by refer- ' ence to die decision of t' e Cherokee ciiauce ! ry case, already referred to, it will be remem bered that the Legislature of Georgia com menced it legislation over the territory oc- CtiKOBSCtiiA, TIJI:SI>AY MOItJIIIW, SISPT6, ISJ>6. 1 copied by the Cherokees in 1828, and re- 1 pealed it in 1829 and in 1830, all which I acts were brought in review before the court so far as they’ rcdated to Indians and Indian ' lands in the course of that decission ; and ' the prayer of hili that the Court would en- j ioin .and restrain thejurisdiction ofGeorgia was rejected outlie whole ground taken !by the complainants. Why, within one ! year thereafter, the same Court should have i taken upon her.-elf to exercise the political I pow er so distinctly claimed in the Cherokee ! case in 1831, might be an interesting topoic ;ol inquiry, it lime would permit. Nor does ■ it seem dillicult to refer the motive to the same cause which enlisted every availlable* | influence pecuniary ami otherwise, in tiie ; then pending Presidential election. But I ! will forber its discussion. The last act of the Legislature to w hich [ I have referred, the act ofthe 22d Decem ber, 1830, contained the following provis ions : “ That ail white persons residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation, on the first day ol March next, or at any time therealtcr, without a license or permit [ from his excellency the Governor, or from I such agent as his excellency shall authorize to grant such permit or license, and who i shall not have taken the oath hereinafter required, shall be guilty of a high misde i meanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall i i be punished by confinement to the peniten tiary at hard labor, for a term not less than 'four years: Protidcd, that the provisions 1 ot this section shall not be construed to ex ! tend to any authorized agent or agents of the Government of the United States or of this State, or to any person or persons who may rent any of those improvements which have been abandoned by Indians who have emigrated west of the Mississippi; Provi ded, nothing con.ained in this section shall be so construed as to extend to white fe males, and to male children under twenty one years of age.” The oath prescribed is in these words: “ I. A. id., do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that 1 will support and defend the constitution of the State of Georgia, and uprightly demean my.-elt as a citizen thereof : so help me 1 God.” At September term of Gwinnett Superior Court, (1831,) Samuel A. Wor cester, E. Butler, and others, were indicted for living in the country occupied by the Cherokees, in contravention of the laws of Georgia referred to, found guilty, and sen-1 tenced to the penitentiary ofGeorgia, there j to remain at hard labor for the term of ! four years. Ami in the October following lhejudgment against Worcester was talo n up, by citation, to the Supreme Court ol the United States. I may be once more permitted to express my astonishmi n tjat the same tribun d, ’ w hich in the sp:i.:g of 1831 should have I confessed itself powerless to interfere with, ! or ii) any manner to restrain the jurisdiction i of Georgia over Indians in the country oc- ' copied by the Cherokees, should so soon, at its next annual term, find itself fully com petent to restrain that jurisdiction over its ! own white citizens residing within the same ? [ territory, so as entirely to oust the State of | ail right am! power w hatsoever over them. ' Tiie country was the same, and the enact- | ! nients are contained in one ofthe very laws of Georgia brought in review before the! Court in 1831. The laws and treaties, so [ ' called, upon which the Court reliedin both i cases, were the same, w ith this remarkable \ ' difference in favor of the former, that nei- ’ ther the commercial power claimed by' the ' United States, nor any of the treaties, con- ; | tain any principle applicable to any other ' description of persons hut Indians, except • that description of w hite persons expressly' exempted by the act of 1830 itself from its ' operation —persons exercising an agency, j or otherwise permitted by the United States to reside among the Indians. The honorable gentleman has asserted that the missionaries were residing among ( the Cherokees by the permission ofthe Go vernment. This I most peremptorily deny, upon the well settled legal principle that 1 w hat does not appear does not exist. The law of Georgia under which they were prosecuted, excepted from its opera- ! lion all such w hite men as were residing a- , mong the Cherokees by permission of the Government of the United States. Upon j their trial the_y were entitled to the benefit of testimony going to establish the fact of ' such permission, and they did not produce it; therefore I deny the existence of such permission. Whatever tne honorable gen- ' tieman may think of their Christian meek- , ness and piety, it would not have carried them so far as to court conviction and four years hard labor in the penitentiary, if the production of a certificate would have pre vented it; and the production of such cer tificate would have secured that acquittal ( instantly. Further: if they would have , taken the oath to demean themselves in an orderly manner as citizens of Georgia, the ( prosecution would have been instantly en- | ded. The authorities of Georgia, so far ; from desiring to prosecute and punish them, j were exceedingly anxious to avoid it ; and ! ( even after their conviction and arrival at j , tiie penitentiary, if they would have acknovv- , lodged the jurisdiction of Georgia, or con-j sented to leave the country where they resi- [ ‘ ded, they would have been discharged. Nor ! were they left to make the offer themselves; [ the nipst earnest endeavors were made to I induce them to accept the one or the other [ ' of these alternatives : but they were then! refused, when some months th realter they ! were liberated upon one or the other of the' conditions which I have mentioned. Tim honorable gentleman has stated that j the-i' rnissionarii s were oppressed by the j Government of Georgia for preaching the gospel to the Indians. This allegation has not the shadow of a foundation to rest upon. ' Hb••I I * i ’ 1 Here is no reference w hatever to the ob ject or pursuit of white men living among 1 the Cherokees. All that was required of 1 them was an oath to demean themselves as ' orderly citizens of Georgia. There wore 1 other cilizons of Georgia residing in ti)at< ' <UH I i'Ji Iff fil >• /jj f €■£/* tCf • | i-oiiinry upon whom the laws of the btate 1 were operatinu. Il might be curious to inquire why the Supreme Court did not ar ' rotate exclusivejui isdictiou over them also. 1 hese were dozens, who, by virtue of the l opinion of the Attorney General of the U niled States, had rented from the State of Georgia the improvements which bad been abandoned by Cherokbes who had been paid for them under the treaty concluded with them by the honorable gentleman in 1828, and had emigrated west of the Mis* sissippi. If these citizens were subject to the laws of Georgia, aud'even the subtility of tl'.e Supreme Court could not so twist 1 them as to make its Indian law applicable to them, it may well be askul, why it pos i sessed exclusive jiirisdictionovcr one citi i zen ol Georgia, and a restrii-ted federalju j risdiction over another’? The Court did indeed resort to what doubtless seemed to it to be an unanswerable argtmient to sus tain its jurisdiction—that W orcester w as a citizen of Vermont; and this in the face of the fact, that by the eleventh amendment to [ the constitution, it is expressly ousted ofju ! risdiction in suits at the instance of one State against another State. What consti tutes a citizen of a particular State? Be ing a citizen ofthe United States, and hav ing a permanent residence in such State. 1 ) know no other way in w Inch a citizen of a State can be more properly defined. Wor cester was a citizen of the United States, and had a permanent residence in Georgia, and was therefore the citizen of Georgia. Will the Court or its advocates, here or elsewhere, say that he was not a citizen of the United States and a permanent resident within the limits ol Georgia f The limits ; defined both, by her own constitution of 1798 and the compact entered into with her by the United Slates on the 24tii day of A pril, 1802. I desire an answer without any equivocation or mental reservation whatever and pronounce the assertion of his citizenship in Georgia as wholly undeniable. He had no residence in Vermont, and could not be her citizen ; he bad a fixed, permanent residence in Georgia, and was, therefore, undeniably hers ; and yet the Supreme Court, to ena ble it to carry out its usurpation towards Georgia, assume that a man living more than a thousand miles from Vermont, per manently settled in Georgia, was the citizen of the former and not of the latter State. The immediate motive of this assumption is obvious. As the question before the Court touched the jurisdiction of Georgia over a portion of country will.in her own limits, the admission that the individual con cerned was her citizen, would have deprived it of the pretext of deciding against her. 1' inally, as relates to the case ol the mission a ies, let it be remembered that the Legisla ture ol Georgia passed the act under w hich they were convicted in December, 1830; that but a few months thereafter the Supreme Court admitted her jurisdiction over the country in question and its Indian inhabi tants, by disclaiming any pow'er on its part to repress or restrain it ; that in 1832 the same Court assumed the power of project ing a citizen ol Georgia from li>e operation of her laws within the same territory in which it had, but one year, before, distinct- i lydiscaimed any authority to interfere with that jurisdiction ; and I will fearlessly sub mit it to every impartial judgment, to de- ■ cide which has l.’een the nullifier, the Su preme Court ofthe United States, or Geor gia. Georgia had passed an act of ordin ary legislation, and was engaged in its I peaeelul enforcement, whena degree of the ; Supreme Court, pronounced more than one ! year afterwards, upon an unwarrantable statement of facts, ami upon a jurisdiction w hich it had disclaimed after the passage of the law of Georgia referred to, was the nul lifier, and not Georgia. It was with the most unfeigned reluctance, that 1 found it to be my duty again to enter into the stale and unprofitable discussion of the conduct of the Government, and people of Georgia, towards the Indians. That duty I have performed to the best of my judgment and ability, and as I trust, in no improper or unfriendly spirit, towards the hono abiegen ilemen from Massachusetts, or any other individuul whatsoever. With that topic T have done, and so far as my own will is concerned, take leave of it forever. Before 1 resume my seat, I hope 1 may be permit ted to make a few observations upon the most extraordinary speech made by an hon orable member f rom Vermont (Mr. Everett,) j upon a kindred subject. 1 mean the extra vagant sympathy expressed by him for an Indian tribe, the Seminoles, now at war with his own countrymen. Can it be pos sible, that, in his ardent sympathy fur a miserable tribe of savages, who have con ducted the operations of the present war, wantonly provoked by themselves, withall the cruelty peculiar to their race, the mem ber from Vermont could so far have forgot ten the manly form and honorable bearing of Wiley Thompson, so long associated w ith him as a Beprcseutative from Georgia in the service of' this House, as not to have remembered that he had fallen a victim to the scalping knife ? or have failed to re member the ruthless massacre of the ill-fa ted Dade and companions ? lam sure, if a stranger, who had never heard of the la mented fate of those gallant men, had lis- ' tened to the speech of that gentleman, he j would have ascribed the most humane ami , gentle bearing to the Indians, and unmea- I sured ami unmitigated cruelty to their ad versaries. Certain 1 am, he could not have supposed that a Seminole had handled a ri fle or scalping knife against the white man for the last hundred years. The honora ble gentleman may luxuriate as he will in his Indian sympathies, but, for my part, il l believed that the spirits of the departed were ever permitted to revisit this nether world, i should fear, if 1 entfrtained senti ments like his, that they would visit upon me more appalling horror than the genius of Shakspeare has thrown around the ap- j parition of Banquo, at the feast of his rnur- j defer. Nor do 1 consider the remarks of j that gentleman, relative to our present war [ with the Seminoles, alone reprehensible. It is well know n that much dissatisfaction exists, on the part of a most influential indi vidual of the Cherokee tribe, towards the treaty, for the fulfilment of which we are ! now asked to provide. While I do not charge upon the honorable member from Vermont any desire to encourage the hos tilities of the Indians, 1 feel very sure that the whole tenor of his remarks, at the time referred to, would not fail to be understood by an Indian as intended to palliate if not to defend them. Nor do I consider the taunting manner in which the venerable gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Ad ams) has spoken of the various acts passed during the present session, appropriating money for the suppression of Indian hos tilities, less unfortunate than those of tiie honorable gentleman from Vermont. \\ hat ever is said in excuse or justification of the ; Indians m their barbarous conduct to our| fellow-citizens, certainly cannot be calcula-i ted to restrain their hostilities ; and there were, on the occasions referred to, individ uals of that race in this city, and it may have been within hearing of their voices, entertaining no feelings of kindness to the Government or people, and capable, if so inclined, of spreading horror and destruc tion throughout the borders of more than one of the southern States. In defence of the plan of Indian emigration, by which the enlightened humanity and w ise forecast <4 the present administration of this Govern ment has been so eminently distinguislied, it may not be improper to make a very few brief observations. | When that administration came into pow er, seven years ago, it found a partial sys tem of Indian colonization west ofthe Mis sissippi in operation ; partial, not in with holding its benefits from any tribe which might desire to enjoy them, but only inas much as it embraced but a portion of the tribes then residing east of the Mississippi. The principal of these were a portion of the Creeks and Cherokees, to w hich have been since added the Choctaw s and Chick asaws, with numerousstnalierbands,togeth er with a treaty in 1832 contemplating the removal of the remaining and greater por tion ol the Creeks ; and lately, the treat’,’ with the Cherokees, to provide lor the ful filment of which the present appropriation is asked at our hands.< —Within the last six or seven years, the policy of removing and colonizing the Indians in the plates east of the Mississippi, to the westward of that ri- I ver, in a region remote from the habitation of the w hite man. has been among the to pics of universal and bitter discussion from one end of the Union to the othei. Nor on any < ther subject has the course of General Jackson’s administration been more violently or unjustly assailed. And here I take leave to say, that so far from Indian hostilities having been provoked, either by the negligence or injustice of that admin istration, they may, with much greater jus tice, be ascribed to the political philanthro py, so loudly and pharisaically displayed by its political opponents ; and I will fur i ther say, that should war arise on the part I of the Cherokees, the sin of it lies not at the I door of this administration, or its suppor ! lers. It may notbe amissto inquire, briefly, into the history < f Indian emigration wi st of tiie ?Jississippi. Il’ I am not great!v mistaken, one of the motives which indu ced Mr. Jeflerson to desire the annexation lof Louisiana to the United States, was j the prospective removal of tiie eastern Indians, to its remote and uninhabited re gions. Certain it is, that in January, 1809, when addressed by a Cherokee delegation on that subject he encouraged their exam - ination oftiie country high upon Arkansas and White riversand promised to aid them in their emigration to it, if they should de sire to remove after having explored it.— it is believed that a portion of the tribe did emigrate to that country not long after wards. Within the first year of Mr. Mon roe’s administration, the year 1819 a treaty was made with the whole tribe providing for the emigration ol such portion as might wish to join their brethren west of the 2»1 ississippi Ik. iflhe terms ofthe treaty had not been materially changed by another enter- I ed into in the year 1819, there can be but littledoubt thata much larger number would have done so. But it may be answered, that so far, the Government had not enter ed upon any general system upon this sub ject ; and that, in the partial emigrations which had then taken place, it rather fol lowed than attempted to.lead, the in. linina tion of the Indians. However this may have been, the whole aspect of the question was changed by the especial message com municated to Congress by Air. Monroe, on the 27th of January, 1825, in which he stated that it had long occupied the attention ofthe Government, and recommended a general plan of Indian emigration and col onization west of the Mississippi, accompa nied by an elaborate report ot the Secretary of War on the subject. But a short period of Mr. Monroe’s term ol service then re mained unexpired ; but he aid not go out of office, until he had communicated to the Senate the treaty of the Indian Spring, of! February ofthe same year, which provided, among other things, for an exch.«tige ofter- ; ritory, and the removal of’such ol the Creek Indians as might desire it, beyond the Mis- . sissippi, and the operation of which treaty i was arrested by his successor, in the man- j tier J have already stated, in 1826, an j i arrangement was made by the then Chief ! < Magistrate for the removal of a portion of’ ; the Creeks to tiie west ofthe Mississippi ; < and in 1828, a treaty with llie Cherokees | ofthe west which looked to the same object. < Thus it appears that although by the act : of Congress passed in May, 1830, and the treaties concluded with the Choctaws in < 1830, with the Creeks in 1832, the Semi- i miles, in 1834, and more recently with the I Cherokees, and within the sameperiod w ith ; many smaller bands, the scheme of Indian | emigration and colonization west ofthe States ami Territories beyond the Mississippi, has been enlarged and systematized its germ has a much earlier date, and the whole was recommended by Mr. Monroe In 1825, I while the honorable gentleman from Mas sachusetts was a distinguished member of iiis cabinet. It might therefore on the score of time and the authority of high names, be considered worse than useless to explain or defend it. But as this is the last time that I propose to discuss this subject, I hope 1 may be permitted to present a few considera tions derived from experience and the na ture of things why this system is best, both for the whites and the Indians, and especi ally for the latter. The races are as sep arate and distinct as color, character and general condition could well make them ; the one possessing the arts and knowledge I culuvated life—the other the rude, un- I polished nature of the savage. Theconse i queuce might therefore, be naturally' expec ted that it is impossible that they should constitute one community with any thing like practical equality between them. Nor has experience in the slightest degree dis appointed the deductions which a sound logic would have derived from these con siderations. 1 have been told, and am not disposed to doubt it, that for many' years past the remnants of Indian tribes still lingering in most ot the old Stales of this Union have been treated with kindness and humanity. But ot what avail have been ail the efforts of ages to elevate their character and im prove their condition ? Alas I that charac ter lias continued to decern! to the lowest depths of degradation and that condition to unmitigated misery. Thus has it always been with the In dians when surrounded by a white popula tion ; and thus it must alway s be until the laws of nature and society shall undergo' Such change as can only' be produced by! the impress of the Deity. Nor can there j be difficulty in explaining it. The poor In dian (and in such condition he is indeed poor,) of inferior and degraded east, asso ciates with none ofthe white race, but such as are qualified to sink him into still deeper degradation. What, then, should be done to save the remnant from the moral pt sti lence w hich w ould inevitably aw ait them, if relief and salvation shall be delayed until these causes shall be brought to operate up on them ? There is no remedy but to re move them beyod the reach of contamination which will surely come over them, if per mitted to remain until they shall be sur rounded by the causes to w hich I have ad verted, By making the at.'propriation ask ed for in the bill new’ under consideration, you will not only save the Cherokees from he fate which has already befallen their kindred in nearly all die old States of the Union, but you will place them where they will not only be safe from the evils 1 have so imperfectly por trayed, but will ensue that improvement and elevation of character as shall cause j their posterity' to raise up and call you bles sed and at the same time fulfil an obligation to one of the States of this Union, al ready deferred for more than a third of a century. One word more, and I have done. We have heard much here and elsew here of the conduct of Georgia tow ards the Indians. 1 shall not apologise, for she does not need it, fcrany act of legislation of hers, either m its principles or r- gul ir application. The Cherokees drove her to the alterna tive of surrendering forever to a hostile and foreign Government a portion of her own territory or extending her jurisdiction over it. In this extremity she adopted the course sanctioned by the exampleof all the original Slates ofthe Union. She determined to govern her own territory, and the people upon it, in her own way. Whatever of seeming severity may be found in her legis lation on this subject, .is the consequence ol Cherokee defiance of her lawful authori ty sanctioned and encouraged here and elesewhere, by those whose sympathies are • a thousand times stronger towards the Indi an and African race than for the w hile man o! the south, especially if he be a citizen of Georgia—by men w ho have but one short step to take to be found brandjsing the tonj ahaw k and scalping knife in the ranks ofthe 1 udian. From the Extra Globe. MIS.. VAN IWKEN’S Ol iMOAS. CORRESPONDENCE. Washington City, April Uh, 1836, Hon. Marten Van Bjjren Vice Presi dent : Sir—l consider it the right cf every cit* ! izen of the United States, to ask mid de mand and to lie fully informed of the polit ical principles and opinions of those wl;o are candidates for the various ofiices in the gift of the people, and the imperious duty of the candidate to frankly and fully avow and disclose the opinions which he enter* tains. I therefore (as a voter., a citizen, and an individual feeling, a deep and abi , ding interest in the w elfare and prosperity of our common country, and an ardent de sire to see the perpetuity' of our free and | happy form of government.) take the liberty of asking your views on the follow ing sub jects : Ist, Will you, (if elected President of the United States,) sign and approve a bill distributing the surplus revenue ofthe Uni ted States to each state accordingto the fed eral population of each, for internal im provements, education, and to such other objects as the legislature of the several ’ states may see fit to apply the same ? 2ml. Wil! you sign and approve a bill! distrioutmg the proceeds ofthe sales ofthe! public lands to each state according to the! federal population of each, for the purposes 1 above specified ? 3d. \V ill you • jgu and approve bills ma- Plßlf.SSSf. i.jti fasY i’. 1.. Et<.>j;jft W62<J’BLK ft'O. E.SJ7. king appropriations to improve navigabh streams aboveports of entry ? 4th. VJ ;d you sign and approve (if it be* ; comes necessary to secure and save from , avpieciation the revenue and financies ot' j die nation, and to afjord a uniform sound I cr.rri m y to thcpeopleof the United States,) i <t bill (with proper modifications and res* trietions.) chartering a batik ofthe United ! States ? .sth. hat Is your cipin ion as tothecon ( stitutional power of the Semite or House <>-. Representatives of the Congress of the Us oiled State.*, to expunge or obliterate from ihc jom t.ais the recortis and proceedings of a previous session ? A frank, plain, and full answer tu the foregoing inquiri< s is respectfully and ear- I nestly solicited, pur answer is desired as. ! soon as possible. » intend this and your ■ answer tor publicatiobr"" I have the honor to be, Your humble and obedient servant, SHERROD WILLIAMS. Washington. April 20th, 1836. Sir—l have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a letter Iron: you, asking my j opinions and view s upon a series of public j questions. Aou have accompanied the sttbmisMon ol your interrogatories with n reference to he existing relations between us of voter and candidate, and a declaration ol your sense of the rights and duties gravy? ing out of the same. Concurring, as z l do, in the principle which j inculcates and secures the most liberal in? terchange of sentiment between the electap ( and the candidate, I think it, nevertheless, , just and rea>ottable to protect myself against the inference of. having asserted, without , limitation, to the general proposition you have advanced. The duty of a candidate ! for the suffrages of the people to answer fully all enquires made by an elector, unde? i termined as to his course, and seeking, in i good laitb, information as to the opinions of ! the candidate, touching the appropriate du* ties of the o£ice tube filled, is one which I I cheerfully acknow ledge, and w ill, upon all proper occasions, faithfully discharge. ! Jbe rights of an elector, on the other ] hand, who has already determined to oj>- : pose tiie individual te. w hem Lis inquiries I addressed, and v.lm makes them with thq ! sole view of exposing, at his ow n time, and , in t.'e mode he may select, the ( pillions i the i.uididate to unfriendly’ criticism, anti ) the candidate himself to prejudice if the es* I timatimi of portions of his fellow-citizens, I stand, in my judgment, upon a different foot ing. To such enquires 1 hold the candi j date to be al liberty to reply or not, as jus , tree4(> the country’ ami to hisown character ; may, in his opinion, dictate. [ My permmil acquaintance with you is, ! as you know, very limited, and without stopping to enquire as to your objects in ! this particular, I cheerfully assume tlienj Ito be such as I have first described. 1 do ; this the more readily, as your character and situation assure me that if this impression is erroneous,-*-if your course in regard to the I rasidential election so far as 1 am con cerned, is settled, and the information you seek is not asked with a view to .your own conduct, —you will say so frank -- Actmg upon this assumption and belief, I will cheerfully give y ou my “ opinion and views” upon the subjects w hich you have *ubmitied to my consideration.-U-In your list of question, 1 find several which are now under discussion in Congress, and tip on which it may become my duty to vote, as 1 resident of the Senate, before the ter initiation of the present session. My reply to your letter w ill, therefore, be delayed fop a short time; but I will embrace an parly moment, after Congress rises, and in abun? dam season for tl:e purposes of your enqtii? ry, to send it to you. 1 have the honor to be, very respectfully you obd’t serv’t, • M. VAN EUREN, The Hon. Sherrod Williams. Washington, June Oth 1.8.36, Hon. Martin Van Bleen : Sir—-1 addressed you a letter ou Ihc JiU, oi April last, asking your opinion in rela tion to the several subjects therein specified. 1 done so in good faith fiir the purpose of’ know ing y ouropinions on those points, ap4 for the purpose of determining upoj course that I would take in the coming con** test for the Presidency. 1 had the loner on the 20th of the same month to receive a letter from you, acknowledging tfi e receipt of mine, and in which you say you W !J] a ,,_ swer the questions propounded in mv letter but that that answer would be deferred uu*’ til after the adjournment of the present ses? sum of Congress, because sonic of« he sub jects upon vvhich I asked your opini 01l I’endmg before the Senate, a { l( | h you mignt have (in the e .ent the Senate wasequallymv.ded) ,o g : .ve the casting vote. I must be permitted tv say lhat lhe easo|K g'vcn >y you for „<• t ansHerin , lions <s wholly ,m I have aL wayseons.dered jt the duty of a candidate , 1 ' h j people, to inform •l.ose whose suffrages he seeks, of his view* •’"•I opmmr.s !1S to the constitutionality and I’nkcy Os those measures in which they may be nite r estcd, and particularly vvbe’jt the caud-.tiHc shall be called upon by these who >ax e the right to ask his opiniop, and pot to declme gn itig his opinion befpre bi ¥ e lection because perhaps and perchance lie might have to vote upon those subjects or some of them. If the people knew in ad vance the opinion of the candidate they might not place him in a condition to vote, ' 1‘ the reason you assign for not answer* ing my question until the adjournment of ihe present session of Congress be a good one, tiie same reason will continue to exj s t mml apply w ; t h equal force until the fourth of March next; for at the next session of < ougress (whether you shall be