pro states, that the Dutch entered into an alliance with them, which continued without any breach on either side, until the English conquered the colony in 1664. Friendship and tection were then renewed, and the Indians, he says, observed the alliance on their part strictly to his day; and we know that their fidelity continued unshaken down to the period of our revolution. On one occasion, the colonial assembly, in their address to the governor, expressed their abhorrence of the project of reducing the Indians by force, and possessing themselves of their lands; for, to the steadiness of these Indians to the interest of Great Bri tain, they said, they owed, in a great measure, their internal security. The colony governors constantly acknowledged their friendship and services. We have, on the other hand, in favor of the colony, the report of a committee of Congress, to which I have already alluded, that the colony of New York had borne the burden, both as to blood and treasure, of protecting and supporting the six nations for more than one hundred years, as the dependents and allies of the government.' "After all this, who will hesitate to say, that it was worthy of the character of our people, enjoying so great a superiority over the Indians, in the cultivation of the mind, in the lights of science, the distinctions of property, and the arts of civilized life, to have made the protection of the property of the feeble and dependent remnants of the nations, within our limits, a fundamental article of the government? It is not less wise than it is just, to give to that article a benign and liberal interpretation, in favor of the beneficial end in view. We. ought to bear in mind, when we proceed to the consideration of the subject, that the article was introduced for the benefit and protection of the Indians, as well as for our own good, and that we are bound to the performance of it, not only by duty, but by gratitude. The six nations were a great and powerful confederacy, and our ancestors, a feeble colony, settled near the coasts of the ocean, and along the shores of the Hudson and the Mohawk, when these Indians first placed themselves, and their lands, under our protection, and formed a covenant chain of friendship that was to endure for ages. And when we consider the long and distressing wars in which the Indians were involved on our account with the Canadian French, and the artful means which were used, from time to time, to detach them from our alliance, it must be granted that fidelity has been no where better observed, or maintained with a more intrepid spirit, than by these generous barbarians." pp. 723-725. "The act of March 15th, 1799, considers the Oneidas as very defenceless; and, in order to protect them from imposition, it directs the attorney of the district to advise and direct them in all controversies that may arise between the tribe, or any individual thereof, and any other person, and to defend suits instituted against them, and to institute suits for them, and particularly for trespasses committed upon their lands." p. 732. This last paragraph is commended to the particular attention of Congress. The State of New York provided, at the public expense, that the small tribe of Oneidas should have a competent legal adviser, in all their exposures to fraud and imposition. Does it not become the magnanimity, I might say the justice, of our national government to provide immediately, and at the public expense, that the Cherokees should have, in their present difficult circumstances, as able and independent and disinterested legal advisers and advocates, as can be found in the United States? They are precisely in the condition of a man, whom the English jaw describes, (and our law too,) as inops consilii, and for whom counsel should therefore be provided, at the expense of the government. In the selection of the learned and honorable men, to whom this high trust should be confided, the wishes and feelings of the Cherokees themselves should doubtless be consulted. The Secretary of War, in a letter addressed to the Rev. Eli Baldwin, dated Rip Raps, Aug. 25, 1829, asks the following question: "What would the authorities of the State of New York say to an attempt, on the part of the Six Nations, to establish, within her limits, a separate and independent government?" By a diligent perusal of the foregoing extracts, and especially by such a perusal of the whole case, the Secretary of War will ascertain what the authorities of the State of New York have said on this subject. EXTRACTS FROM JUDGE STORY'S CENTENNIAL DISCOURSE. The Legislature of Georgia says, that the governments of Europe, and colonies of Europeans, asserted the right of driving Indians from their lands by virtue of discovery. The reader has seen that Chief Justice Marshall and Chancellor Kent hold a doctrine directly opposed to such an assumption. It may be interesting to see what another learned Judge, who is worthy to be associated with the other two, has said on this subject. "Our forefathers did not attempt to justify their own emigration and settlement, upon the European doctrine of the right of discovery. Their patent from the Crown contained a grant of this right; but they felt that there was a more general question behind. What warrant have we to take that land, which is, and hath been of long time possessed by others, the sons of Adam?' Their answer is memorable for its clearness, strength, and bold assertion of principles. That which is common to all (said they) is proper to none. This savage people AMERICAN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR FOREIGN MISSIONS LIBRARY ruleth over many lands without title or property. Why may not Christians have liberty to go and dwell amongst them in their waste lands? God hath given to the sons of men a twofold right to the earth. There is a natural right and a civil right. The first right was natural, when men held the earth in common. When afterwards they appropriated some parcels of ground, by enclosing and peculiar manurance, this in time got them a civil right. There is more than enough land for us and them. God hath consumed them with a miraculous plague, whereby the greater part of the country is left void of inhabitants. Besides, we shall come in with the good leave of the natives.' Such arguments were certainly not unworthy of men of scrupulous virtue. They were aided by higher considerations, by the desire to propagate Christianity among the Indians; a desire, which is breathed forth in their confidential papers, , in their domestic letters, in their private prayers, and in their public devotions. In this object they were not only sincere, but constant. So sincere and so constant, that one of the grave accusations against them has been, that in their religious zeal, they compelled the Indians, by penalties, to attend public worship, and allured them, by presents, to abandon their infidelity. In truth, the propagation of Christianity was a leading motive with many of the early promoters of the settlement; and we need no better proof of it, than the establishment of an Indian school at Harvard College to teach them the rudiments of Christian faith. "Whatever, then, may have been the case in other parts of the continent, it is a fact, and it should not be forgotten, that our forefathers never attempted to displace the nations by force, upon any pretence of European right. They occupied and cultivated what was obtained by grant, or was found vacant. They constantly respected the Indians in their settlements and claims of soil. They protected them from their enemies, when they sought refuge among them. They stimulated no wars for their extermination. During the space of fifty years, but a single case of serious warfare occurred; and though we cannot but lament the cruelties then perpetrated, there is no pretence, that they were the aggressors in the contest. Whatever complaints, therefore, may be justly urged by philosophy, or humanity, or religion, in our day, respecting the wrongs and injuries of the Indians, they scarcely touch the Pilgrims of New England. Their hands were not imbrued in innocent blood. Their hearts were not heavy with crimes and oppressions engendered by avarice. If they were not wholly without blame, they were not deep in guilt. They might mistake the time, or the mode of christianizing and civilizing the Indians; but they did not seek pretences to extirpate them. Private hostilities and butcheries there might be; but they were not encouraged or justified by the government. It is not, then, a just reproach, sometimes cast on their memories, that their religion narrowed down its charities to Christians only; and forgot, and despised, and oppressed these forlorn children of the forest." pp. 72-74. TREATY WITH THE CHOCTAWS. The fourth article of the treaty of 1820 is in the following words: "The boundaries hereby established, between the Choctaw Indians and the United States, on this side of the Mississippi river, shall remain without alteration until the period, at which said nation shall become so civilized and enlightened, as to be made citizens of the United States; and Congress shall lay off a limited parcel of land for the benefit of each family, or individual, in the nation." In the subsequent treaty, negotiated by Mr. Calhoun, Jan. 20, 1825, the same subject was taken up, as follows: "It is further agreed, that the fourth article of the treaty aforesaid shall be so modified, as that the Congress of the United States shall not exercise the power of apportioning the lands, for the benefit of each family or individual, of the Choctaw nation, and of bringing them under the laws of the United States, but with the consent of the Choctaw nation." In framing the fourth article here referred to, the intention must have been, either that the Choctaws should ultimately form a territory by themselves, which should be taken under the care of the general government; or that they should become citizens of the State of Mississippi, and thus citizens of the United States. But neither of these things were to take place, till the Choctaws should have become enlightened, and Congress should have declared them to be so, and should have made an apportionment of their lands. In the last treaty, framed less than five years ago, it is solemnly stipulated, that the Choctaws shall not be brought under the laws of the United States in any sense, "but with the consent of the Choctaw Nation." This is the same thing as to say, that the Choctaw nation is left where it was originally, and where the other Indian nations now are; viz. under their own laws, and not under the laws of any State, nor of the United States. The President of the United States, in his late Message to Congress, says very truly: Upon this country, more than any other, has, in the Providence of God, been cast the special guardianship of the great principle of adherence to written constitutions." Let it be remembered, that the constitution of the United States is express and positive, in regard to the binding nature of treaties; and that, by a solemn stipulation in our last treaty with the Choctaws, negotiated by the Secretary of War, now Vice President of the United States, that nation of Indians is not to be brought under our laws BUT WITH ITS OWN CONSENT. |