are less cultivated now than when those treaties were made. Indeed, it is certain, that they have greatly advanced in civilization; we see it in the very proofs introduced by the gentleman from Georgia to show their barbarism. He produced to the Senate a printed code of Cherokee laws, and a newspaper issued from a Cherokee press! Is there another instance of such productions from any Indian nation? I was surprised, that, with all his scrutiny, he could find no more remnants of savage customs. I shall not dwell long upon his selections from their laws. The first was, that, if a horse should be stolen, and the owner, finding the thief in possession, should immediately kill him, in the excess of passion, it should rest upon his own conscience. It is to be observed that the person slain must have been guilty; and for such an offence, life is now taken by the laws of England. But this provision, inserted in the Cherokee code more than twenty years ago, has yielded to further light, and been since repealed. Time will not permit me to insist upon their advance in the arts of civilized life. It is known to have been great. They till the ground, manufacture for themselves, have work-shops, a printing press, schools, churches, and a regularly organized government. Indeed, the gentleman from Tennessee himself told us, that some individuals of that nation were qualified for seats in this august assembly.

What danger, it is asked, have the Indians to apprehend from the laws of the State?

What danger? Is it not here avowed, that their presence is a nuisance, from which Georgia wishes to be relieved? Has not her legislature declared, that she is determined to have their lands at all hazards, even by violence, in the last resort? And, if left to her unrestrained power, can it be doubted that she will find the means of carrying that determination into effect? If the laws heretofore enacted are not sufficient, may not others be resorted to? Let us, for a moment, look at the measures already adopted, and see if they have not some adaptation to the accomplishment of her wishes.

By the 9th section of the Act of 1828, no Indian in the Creek or Cherokee nations can be a party or a witness in any suit to which a white man may be a party. It is said that this has been repealed by the statute of 1829. I think otherwise. The latter contains no repealing clause, nor any incompatible provisions. Both may well stand together, and both would be enforced according to the usual construction of statutes in pari materia. It is true, that a part of the title of the act is, to repeal that 9th section of the former. This is easily accounted for. The act, as first reported by the committee, probably contained. a repealing clause-which was stricken out by the more zealous majority—the original title remaining unchanged.

But suppose that only the law of 1829 is now in force. What is to be its effect? All the laws, usages, and customs of the Cherokees are abrogated, and severe punishments denounced against those who shall presume to act under them. Their

government is dissolved-their political existence is at an endtheir nation is destroyed-it is resolved into its original elements! We know that their lands are not holden by individual ownership; the title is in the nation. To annihilate the tribe, therefore, as a political community, is to destroy the owner; and the State is then to take the whole by her claim of succession. By this statute, no Cherokee, or descendant of a Cherokee, can be a witness against any white man, who does not reside within the "nation." This devotes their property to the cupidity of their neighbours; it leaves them exposed to every outrage, which lawless passions can inflict. Even robbery and murder may be committed with impunity, at noonday, if not in the presence of such whites as will become prosecutors or wit

nesses.

This, the gentleman from Georgia asserts, creates no new disability; that Indians are not competent to testify, by the common law, either in England or in this country. That I deny. They are good witnesses in both; and have been so, without question, ever since the case of the Gentoo, in the time of Lord Mansfield. Several were recently admitted by the courts of New York, in a very important question of title to real estate near the falls of Niagara; and I have myself seen a person convicted of larceny to a large amount, in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, upon the testimony of an Indian.

But the gentleman assigned, as a reason for his assertion, that a belief in a future state of rewards and punishments was essential to their admissibility as witnesses. True, Sir; and so it is with respect to all others. The objection is as valid against a white as a red man. If this act creates no new disability, why was it passed? Why not leave them to the provisions of the common law? But, Sir, we learn from an intelligent missionary, that there are a thousand members of Christian churches. These, and all other true believers, are excluded. Even those who are so distinguished for their knowledge, integrity and ability, that the honorable chairman would be willing himself to be represented by them, in the Congress of the United States, are not permitted to testify in a court of justice. Under these enactments, the Cherokees are aliens-in their native land; trespassers-upon their own soil; outlaws-in the bosom of their own nation!

But why should I dwell upon the laws already passed, when the same power can, at will, produce others to effectuate the avowed determination? Who will pretend that the Indians can live under the legislation of the State? The head of the bureau of Indian Affairs, in a communication transmitted to Congress by the Secretary of War, declares that it will "seal their destruction, as admitted by their chiefs;" and the Hon. chairman has frankly declared in this debate, that it will reduce them to the last degree of wretchedness;-his words were-" you cannot make a full-blooded Indian more miserable" than by such subjection; and, in his written opinion of 1824, he emphatically says, if "the protection of the United States is withdrawn," "the Cherokee nation cannot exist twelve months."

The question now proposed by this amendment is, Shall that protection be withdrawn, and the Indians be compelled to leave their country under the penalty of certain destruction, if they remain?

The interrogatory has been often repeated, Why should not Georgia extend her laws over the natives as well as other States? Again, Sir, I reply-Our treaties our treaties. The Indians object, and the United States have solemnly promised to interpose at their request. In no other instances have they opposed State legislation, and demanded our interposition. This is a sufficient

answer.

But this topic has been so much urged, and the effort has been so great to find shelter under the precedents of other States, that I will bestow upon them a moment's attention. That principally relied upon, and the only one specified, is a law of New York, passed four or five years ago. The occasion was this. In one of the little reduced tribes, within that State, a female had been executed as a witch. The executioner was indicted in the State court before one judge, and convicted. The question of jurisdic-. tion was carried to the superior court, who never came to a decision, but advised a pardoning act; whereupon this law was passed, which punishes certain high crimes committed within the tribe. Its sole object was the protection of the Indians, and it seems to have been by their consent. They have never objected, much less claimed our interposition. Does this bear any analogy to the case of Georgia and the Cherokees? When another tribe, the Oneidas, formed a Constitution of Government similar to that of the Cherokees, did New York interfere to destroy it and dissolve the nation? Far otherwise; they protected them in its enjoyment. And such has been the general character of the legislation of other States. I shall not go back to the early days of colonial vassalage, although it is surprising that so little color of precedent is to be found, even when the weakness of infancy was struggling for existence against the power of the savages. I speak of the States, since they became such, under the Confederation, or the federal Constitution; and say that their general legislation has been-not over the Indians, and acting upon the individuals within the territory of their tribe, but protecting and preserving them as a distinct community-operating upon the whites, and restraining them from inflicting wrongs and injuries. The legislation of Georgia has thrown over them a net, which binds every limb in fetters, but is no shield of defence against assaults; whilst that of other States has erected around them a wall of defence, guarding them against encroachments.

This bill, Mr. President, provides for the removal of the Indians to distant regions, beyond the Mississippi; and it is proposed to place no less than half a million of dollars in the hands of the Secretary of War for that purpose. The amendment, now under consideration, declares that they shall be protected, in_the enjoyment of their rights, until they shall choose to remove. The necessity for such a provision is apparent. Without it, they have

no option. Without it, this bill will add to the pressure of the torrent that is sweeping them away.

Is it not known that Acts for holding Indian treaties have been used as instruments of coercion? When our commissioners have met the chiefs in council to obtain further acquisitions of territory, have they not sometimes asked only, What will you reserve? And when the answer has been, We have no lands to spare-we will cede nothing; the question is repeated, What will you reserve?— Congress have passed a law for the purpose of obtaining a portion of your soil-the United States are strong-their arms now sleep in peace-beware how you arouse them from their slumbers!

Not only has terror been inspired, but other means have been used to cause the women to influence their husbands; the children to beseech their parents; the warriors to urge the chiefs; until their firmness is overcome. It is related of a venerable chief, that, yielding at last to this irresistible pressure, he signed the fatal parchment in tears-declaring at the time that it was the death-warrant of his nation.

Apprehending that our object is to obtain further cessions, the Indians have met us in council with fear and trembling. In one instance, five or six tribes being assembled, our commissioners announced to them that our only desire was to establish and preserve peace among themselves; that we asked for no lands.They instantly rent the air with acclamations of joy. No difficulties, no delays intervened—the treaties were accomplished at

once.

Is it uncharitable to suppose that agents, to be appointed under the direction of those, who are now concerned in our Indian affairs, may resort to force or terror?

Sir, the officer now at the head of the Indian bureau, in his official report of a treaty of cession, made by him with the Creeks, states the fact, that, in two successive councils, he met only a firm denial; and in the third, he says, one individual being most prominent in his opposition, it was not until he "broke him upon the spot" that the treaty was obtained! Yes, Sir, that officer avows that he "broke" one of the prominent chiefs in their own council, as the only means of accomplishing his purposes!

And in an official communication, sent to us by the Secretary of War, at the commencement of this session, the same officer recommends that the government should send an "armed force" to the Cherokee country, to further the objects of this bill-the removal of the natives. He says, indeed, that he would make a solemn declaration that the military were not to be used to compel them to leave their country, but only to give security to those that were willing to go. And would such a declaration, even if made, do away the effect of the presence of our bayonets? What is the avowed purpose? To protect, against their own government and people, the individuals who may choose to emigrate; but not to afford any aid or countenance to those that may choose to remain. The chiefs may inquire-Will these soldiers give us protection against the power of Georgia, if she shall attempt to force her laws upon us? The reply must be, Oh no- -the PRES

IDENT has decided that she has a right to govern you; and if you should resist, the United States are bound to assist her in the execution of her laws against all opposition. When the British minister remonstrated against the emperor Alexander's annexing a part of Poland to his dominions, he replied-I have three hundred thousand soldiers in that country. The argument was conclusive. If the Cherokees should hesitate, they might, in significant silence, be pointed to our glittering bayonets.

It is recommended to send an armed force to enable the Cherokees to deliberate freely!

When the Roman orator appeared in defence of Milo, he found the forum surrounded by an armed force, accompanied, no doubt, by the declaration that it was only to preserve tranquillity. But even the tongue of Cicero was palsied by the formidable array, and his friend and client was abandoned to his fate. We know, Sir, how the deliberations of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the National Convention of France, have been aided by the presence of an armed force; and history abounds with similar examples.

I confess, Sir, that I cannot but indulge fears of the use which may be made by the War Department, of the half million of dollars, to be appropriated by this bill. We do know, that, in making Indian treaties, there have been instances of valuable reservations of lands, and large sums of money being secretly given to individual chiefs, by confidential arrangements, to induce them to yield to our wishes, and betray the confidence reposed in them by their nation. Is it uncharitable to apprehend that such things may happen under the directions of the present Secretary of War?

Toward that high officer I have no feeling of unkindness. I seek no imputation upon his motives; but his official acts I am bound, by the duties of my station, to examine. Look at the instructions given by him, in May last, to general Carroll, who was sent as an agent of the government to induce the Cherokees to a removal. They express throughout much solicitude for the welfare of the Indians, and profess to consult their best interests. But I am constrained to look at the acts to be done-the course of conduct prescribed. He is directed not to meet the Cherokees in “general council," for "the consequence would be, what it has been, a firm refusal to acquiesce;" but to "appeal to the chiefs and influential men-not together, but apart, at their own houses; and to make offers to them of extensive reservations in fee simple, and other rewards," to obtain "their acquiescence." He is further told-the more careful "you are to secure from even the chiefs the official character you bear, the better;" and again-" Go to them not as a negotiator, but friend."

"Open to each a view of his danger. Enlarge on their comparative degradation as a people, and the total impossibility of their ever attaining to higher privileges while they retain their present relations to a people who seek to get rid of them"-that their laws "will be superseded and trodden under foot." Again-"Enlarge upon the advantage of their condition in the west-there the general govern