American colonies a spirit of firm resistance; and how was the tea tax met, Sir? Just as it should be. There was lurking, beneath this trifling imposition of duty, a covert assumption of authority, that led directly to oppressive exactions. "No taxation without representation," became our motto. We would neither pay the tax, nor drink the tea. Our fathers buckled on their armor, and, from the water's edge, repelled the encroachments of a misguided cabinet. We successfully and triumphantly contended for the very rights and privileges, that our Indian neighbors now implore us to protect and preserve to them. Sir, this thought invests the subject under debate with most singular and momentous interest. We, whom God has exalted to the very summit of prosperity-whose brief career forms the brightest page in history; the wonder and praise of the world; Freedom's hope, and her consolation:-We about to turn traitors to our principles and our fame-about to become the oppressors of the feeble, and to cast away our birth-right! Mr. President, I hope for better things.

It is a subject full of grateful satisfaction, that, in our public intercourse with the Indians, ever since the first colonies of white men found an abode on these western shores, we have distinctly recognised their title; treated with them as the owners; and, in all our acquisitions of territory, applied ourselves to these ancient proprietors, by purchase and cession alone, to obtain the right of soil. Sir, I challenge the record of any other or different pretension. When or where did the assembly or convention meet, which proclaimed, or even suggested to these tribes, that the right of discovery contained a superior efficacy to all prior titles?

And our recognition was not confined to the soil merely. We regarded them as nations—far behind us, indeed, in civilization; but still we respected their forms of government—we conformed our conduct to their notions of civil polity. We were aware of the potency of any edict that sprang from the deliberations of the council fire; and when we desired lands, or peace, or alliances, to this source of power and energy, to this great lever of Indian government, we addressed our proposals. To this alone did we look, and from this alone did we expect aid or relief.

I now proceed, very briefly, to trace our public history in these important relations. As early as 1763, a proclamation was issued by the king of Great Britain to his American colonies and dependencies, which, in clear and decided terms, and with an honorable regard for Indian privileges, declared the opinions of the crown and the duties of its subjects. The preamble to that part of this document which concerns Indian affairs, is couched in terms that cannot be misunderstood. I give a literal extract:

"And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our interest and the security of our colonies, that the several nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are connected, and who live under

our protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of our dominions and territories, as, not having been ceded to or purchased by us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their hunting grounds."

Therefore the governors of colonies are prohibited, upon any pretence whatever, from granting any warrants of survey, or passing any patents for lands, "upon any lands whatever, which, not having been ceded or purchased, were reserved to the said Indians ;" and, by another injunction in the same proclamation, "all persons whatever, who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by the crown, were reserved to the Indians as aforesaid, are strictly enjoined and required to remove themselves from such settlements."

This royal ordinance is an unqualified admission of every principle that is now urged in favor of the liberties and rights of these tribes. It refers to them as nations, that had put themselves under the protection of the crown; and, adverting to the fact that their lands had not been ceded or purchased, it freely and justly runs out the inevitable conclusion, that they are reserved to these nations as their property; and forbids all surveys and patents, and warns off all intruders and trespassers. Sir, this contains the epitome of Indian history and title. No king, colony, state or territory, ever made, or attempted to make, a grant or title to the Indians, but universally and perpetually derived their titles from them. This one fact, that stands forth broadly on the page of Indian history-which neither kings nor colonies-neither lords proprietors, nor diplomatic agents, have, on any single occasion, disputed-is alone sufficient to demolish the whole system of political pretensions, conjured up in modern times, to drive the poor Indian from the last refuge of his hopes.

The next important era, in the order of time, relates to the dispute of the colonies with Great Britain. The attention of the Congress, on the eve of that conflict, was called to the situation of these tribes, and their dispositions on that interesting subject. Then, Sir, we approached them as independent nations, with the acknowledged power to form alliances with or against us. For, in June, 1775, our Congress resolved, "That the Committee for Indian Affairs do prepare proper talks to the several tribes of Indians, for engaging the continuance of their friendship to us, and neutrality in our present unhappy dispute with Great Britain." Again, on the 12th July, 1775, a report of the Committee was agreed to, with the following clause at its head: "That the securing and preserving the friendship of the Indian nations, appears to be a subject of the utmost moment to these colonies.' And, Sir, the journals of that eventful period of our history are full of resolutions, all of which indicate the same opinions of those illustrious statesmen, respecting the unquestioned sovereignty of the Indians. I forbear further details. After the revolution, and in the

eighth year of our Independence, in the month of September, A. D. 1783, the Congress again took up the subject of Indian affairs, and resolved to hold a convention with the Indians residing in the middle and northern States, who had taken up arms against us, for the purposes of "receiving them into the favor and protection of the United States, and of establishing boundary lines of property, for separating and dividing the settlements of the citizens from the Indian villages and hunting grounds, and thereby extinguishing, as far as possible, all occasion for future animosities, disquiet and contention."

If, at any point of our existence as people, a disposition to encroach upon the Indians, and to break down their separate and sovereign character, could have been looked for, or at all excused, this was the time; when we had just come out of a long, severe and bloody conflict, often prosecuted by our foes with unnatural barbarity, and to aggravate which, these very tribes had employed their savage and ferocious customs. And yet, Sir, what do we find? Instead of the claims of conquest, the rights of war, now so convenient to set up, the American Congress, greatly just, accord to these very Indians the character of foreign nations, and invite them to take shelter under our favor and protection; not only this, but adopt measures 'to ascertain and establish boundary lines of property between our citizens and their villages and hunting grounds.'

66

Under the confederation of the old thirteen States, and shortly before the adoption of the Constitution, on the 28th of November, 1785, a treaty was made with the Cherokee nation at Hopewell. This treaty, according to its title, was concluded between "Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, of the one part, and the Headmen and Warriors of all the Cherokees, of the other." It gives "peace to all the Cherokees," and receives them into the favor and protection of the United States. And, by the first article, the Cherokees agree to restore all the prisoners, citizens of the United States, or subjects of their allies, to their entire liberty." Here, again, we discover the same magnanimous policy of renouncing any pretended rights of a conqueror in our negotiations with the allies of our enemy. We invite them to peace; we engage to become their protectors; and, in the stipulation for the liberation of prisoners, we trace again the broad line of distinction between citizens of the United States and the Cherokee people. Who, after this, Sir, can retain a single doubt as to the unquestioned political sovereignty of these tribes. It is very true, that they were not absolutely independent. As they had become comparatively feeble, and as they were, in the mass, an uncivilized race, they chose to depend upon us for protection; but this did not destroy or affect their sovereignty. The rule of public law is clearly stated by Vattel:-"One community may be bound to another by a very unequal alliance, and still be a sovereign State. Though a weak State, in order to provide for its safety, should place itself under the protection of a more powerful one, yet, if it reserves to itself the right of govern

ing its own body, it ought to be considered as an independent State." If the right of self-government is retained, the State preserves its political existence; and, permit me to ask, when did the southern Indians relinquish this right? Sir, they have always exercised it; and were never disturbed in the enjoyment of it, until the late legislation of Georgia and the States of Alabama and Mississippi.

The treaty next proceeds to establish territorial domains, and to forbid all intrusions upon the Cherokee country, by any of our citizens, on the pains of outlawry. It provides, that if any citizen of the United States shall remain on the lands of the Indians for six months "after the ratification of the treaty, such person shall forfeit the protection of the United States, and the Indians may punish him or not, as they please." What stronger attribute of sovereignty could have been conceded to this tribe, than to have accorded to them the power of punishing our citizens according to their own laws and modes? and, Sir, what more satisfactory proof can be furnished to the Senate, of the sincere and inflexible purpose of our government to maintain the rights of the Indian nations, than the annexation of such sanctions as the forfeiture of national protection, and the infliction upon intruders of any punishment within the range of savage discretion. It is to be recollected, that this treaty was made at a time when all admit the Cherokees to have been, with very rare exceptions, in the rudest state of pagan darkness.

Mr. President, it is really a subject of wonder, that, after these repeated and solemn recognitions of right of soil, territory and jurisdiction, in these aboriginal nations, it should be gravely asserted, that they are mere occupants at our will; and, what is absolutely marvellous, that they are a part of the Georgia population-a district of her territory, and amenable to her laws, whenever she chooses to extend them!

After the treaty of Hopewell was made and ratified, and in the year 1787, the States of North Carolina and Georgia transmitted their protests to Congress, in which they complained of the course of transactions adopted with respect to the Indians, and asserted a right in the States to treat with these tribes, and to obtain grants of their lands. The Congress referred the whole matter to a committee of five, who made an elaborate report, that disclosed the principles upon which the intercourse of the confederacy with these people was founded. It is material to a correct understanding of this branch of the subject, that we should advert to a limitation, subsisting at that time, upon the powers of the old Congress. The limitation is contained in the following clause of the articles of confederation: -"Congress shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States; provided that the legislative right of any State, within its own limits, be not infringed or violated."

Upon this clause and its proviso, the committee proceed to report: “In framing this clause, the parties to the federal compact must have had some definite objects in view. The objects that come into view principally in forming treaties, or managing affairs with the Indians, had been long understood, and pretty well ascertained, in this country. The committee conceive that it has been long the opinion of the country, supported by justice and humanity, that the Indians have just claims to all lands occupied by, and not fairly purchased from, them." "The laws of the State can have no effect upon a tribe of Indians, or their lands within a State, so long as that tribe is independent, and not a member of the State. It cannot be supposed that the State has the powers mentioned," (those of making war and peace, purchasing lands from them, and fixing boundaries,) "without absurdity in theory and practice. For the Indian tribes are justly considered the common friends or enemies of the United States, and no particular State can have an exclusive interest in the management of affairs with any of the tribes, except in uncommon cases.'

The Senate perceive the estimate that was formed of these State pretensions. The committee argue with conclusive energy, that to yield such powers to particular States, would not only be absurd in theory, but would in fact destroy the whole system of Indian relations-that this divided, alternate cognizance of the matter, by the States and by the Congress, could never be enforced, and would result in discordant and fruitless regulations. The grounds assumed in this able report are unanswerable, The committee regarded the subject as national, concerning the whole United States, of whom the Indians were the common friends or foes-that such a concern was too general and public in all its bearings, to be subjected to the legislation and management of any particular State. The Congress, therefore, assumed the entire jurisdiction and control of it. And after this report, we hear no more of State protests. They yielded their claims to a much safer depositary of this interesting trust. Sir, I take leave to say, that the sound, sensible principles of this report have lost nothing of their authority by time, and that every year of our history has confirmed their wisdom; as well as illustrated the justice and humanity of the Congress of '87.

The Convention that formed and adopted the Constitution, in their deliberations upon the security of Indian rights, wisely determined to place our relations with the tribes under the absolute superintendence of the general government, which they were about to establish. The proviso under the old compact, that had in ambiguous terms reserved to particular States an undefined management of Indian Affairs, was altogether discarded; and the simple, unqualified control of this important branch of public policy, was delegated to Congress, in the following clause of the Constitution: "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." An incidental argu