H. OF R.] maintain. time in bringing into view. For my own part, after this to make this legitimate extinguishment? If the States are thorough examination, I am the more firmly convinced of seised in fee, they have the power to convey; if they have the correctness of the positions I have endeavored to the power to convey, they must have the right to occupy, or to place the party to whom conveyance is made in posBut I am referred to decisions of the highest judicial tri-session; and it is contended that the case is not altered if bunal of this nation. To look here for authority to inves- the soil is in the General Government, and the jurisdiction tigate questions of sovereign power and right, is conceding in the State. Georgia, therefore, claimed, as a cona point not claimed by some of the ablest expounders of sideration of her surrender, that in her limits the General the principles of our fundamental law; but it is not neces- Government should extinguish the remnant of Indian right. sary for my purpose, though the question is one of sover- Could it have been exacted of the General Government eignty, whether in the States or the General Government without this stipulation? But, to proceed in our examia certain power be vested; to raise a question, I will, there-nation of the commentators on the principles I have laid fore, look to the decisions of the Supreme Court; and down; and, next in course, I will take up the case, adthough much doubt exists, if it be not positively certain to judicated in the same tribunal, of the State of New Jersey the contrary, whether that court has ever had the point against Wilson. Does this case touch the question, now presented for adjudication. But some think that or does the case of later date, of first 1812, the opinion is given, and for it refer me to the case of Fletcher second, 1816, Preston vs. Browder? Neither of them, it vs. Peck. This case is one of such long standing (being is believed, does. The first involved the principle pronearly eighteen years old) that I will not consume time by hibited in the constitution of the United States, of a State stating it, but proceed directly to the part of the opinion passing a law impairing the obligation of a contract; and of Chief Justice Marshall, which embraces (if any part does) the point under consideration. It is as follows: control. the second is purely local, declaring the illegality of an entry on Indian lands, when such entry was previously pro"The counsel for the plaintiff rest their argument on a hibited by an act of the Legislature of North Carolina. single proposition. They contend that the reservation for If, however, any thing is deducible from these cases, it the use of the Indians, contained in the proclamation of that over the Indians, within any one of the States, the is in confirmation of the doctrine I contend for, to wit: 1763, excepts the lands on the Western waters from the colonies within whose bounds they would otherwise have Legislature of such State has the legal and constitutional been, and that they were acquired by the Revolutionary ble judgment it cannot: but some may answer that this is Can this conclusion be contested? In my humwar. All acquisitions during the war, it is contended, were made by the joint arms, for the joint benefit of the strange, that such a practice should have obtained and United States, and not for the benefit of any particular State. Government, and passively submitted to by the States. been so long uninterruptedly prosecuted by the General "The court does not understand the proclamation as it The answer to this is, if the principle is not sanctioned by is understood by the counsel for the plaintiff. The reser- the constitution, it was wrong in its adoption; and if wrong vation for the use of the Indians appears to be a tempo- originally, no practice, no custom, can put it right; no cusrary arrangement, suspending for a time the settlement of the country reserved, and the powers, of the Royal Go-in this we claim the superior excellence of our form of tom, no matter how venerable, can become law here; and vernor within the territory reserved; but is not conceived Government to all others on earth. The beginning and to amount to an alteration of the boundaries of the colony. end of all the power vested in the General Government If the language of the proclamation be, in itself, doubtful, is in our written constitution. No combination of men or the commissions subsequent thereto which were given to circumstances can ever, therefore, alter the form of our the Governor of Georgia entirely remove the doubt. "The question, whether the vacant lands within the tion of the whole body of the people; and in this consists institutions, without the knowledge and constitutional sancUnited States became a joint property, or belonged to the their strong pledge of independence in themselves, and separate States, was a momentous question, which at one time threatened to shake the American Confederacy to its honesty and virtue in those they may at any time clothe foundation. It is the opinion of the court that the particu-ed under the constitution. with authority. But the power under discussion is claimlar land stated in the declaration, appears, from this special the assertion, that I have clearly shown that it is not emI think I may here venture verdict, to lie within the State of Georgia, and that the braced in the clause that grants the power to regulate State of Georgia had power to grant it. Some difficulty "commerce with Indian tribes." But that it is still to be was produced by the language of the covenant, and of the found in the prohibition, contained in that instrument, of pleadings. It was doubted whether a State can be scised in fee of lands subject to the Indian title, and whether a decision that they were scised in fee might not be construed to amount to a decision that their grantee might maintain an ejectment for them, notwithstanding that utle. The majority of the court is of opinion that the nature of the Indian title, which is certainly to be respected by all courts, until legitimately extinguished, is not such as to be absolutely repugnant to seisin in fee on the part of the State. Judgment affirmed with costs." any of the States to enter into "treaties," &c. may be urged. I think that on this point I have already adduced conclusive arguments; but as I rely either upon the principles expressed in the constitution itself, to know what the principles, rather than upon argument, I shall claim farconstitution is, or upon the able commentators upon those ther indulgence, while I present upon this particular point the full views of Alexander Hamilton, clearly and unequivocally expressed in his No. 75 of the Federalist, and afterwards most deliberately sanctioned and quoted by James Madison, in the first number of his Helvetius: Mr. H. says: 66 It was in vain that it was urged that the lands in controversy were not in Georgia, in consequence of the proclamation of 1763, which I have already noticed: it was in "Though several writers on the subject of Govern vain that it was urged that the State of Georgia could not ment place that power (of making treaties) in the class of make the grant, because the Indian title was not extin- Executive authorities; yet this is evidently an arbitrary guished. Nothing is admitted by the proclamation adverse disposition: for, if we attend carefully to its operato the right of Georgia in the soil; and nothing is admitted tion, it will be found to partake more of the Legisto the Indian but the mere right of occupancy; or how is lative than of the Executive character, though it does not it that seisin in fee is sanctioned in the State during the seem strictly to fall within the definition of either of them. Indian occupancy? It is true the court admits that the Indian title should be respected by all courts, until legitimately extinguished. Had not Georgia the power and right The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of society; while the execution of the laws, and the employ JAN. 16, 1829.] ment of the common strength, either for this purpose or and they arise from the thorough conviction that the for the common defence, seem to comprise all the func-question of power is settled. I contend that, if the power tions of the Executive Magistrate. The power of making existed, the present system is impolitic-it is not humane. treaties is plainly neither the one nor the other; it relates Millions have been lavished upon our Indians by our Goneither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the vernment; and if money could have raised them to a level enaction of new ones; and still less to an exertion of the with ourselves, they would long since have been so. With an common strength. Its objects are contracts with foreign unstinted hand, thousands were annually appropriated; but nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the these thousands, so far from benefiting them, only put obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed it in their power to minister to their own vices, and make by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between them the miserable objects of dishonest traffic. This, sovereign and sovereign.' therefore, makes it a matter of serious concern to the Mr. Madison, before introducing the quotation which I States in which they may be: for, if they are to remain, to have read, uses this language: "That I may not ramble debase them is to injure such States: if they are to remain, beyond prescribed limits, I shall content myself with an humanity, as well as the soundest policy, would call on the extract from a work which entered into a systematic ex- authorities of such States to pursue such measures as planation and defence of the constitution; and to which would make them fit for society. Withdraw your annuithere has frequently been ascribed some influence in con- ties; partition their lands; make them the lords of their ciliating the public assent to the Government in the form own soil; give them the pride that results from a separate proposed. Three circumstances conspire in giving weight independence. But these things are of doubtful practicato this contemporary exposition. It was made at a time bility now. What, then, should Congress do? Congress when no application to persons or measures could bias: has within her constitutional control a large and vast extent the opinion given was not transiently mentioned, but formally and critically elucidated; it related to a point in the constitution which must consequently have been viewed as of importance in the public mind. The passage relates to the power of making treaties," &c. of fertile land-of salubrious climate. Designate within this region a home for the savage of all tribes; withdraw from those tribes within any State all control, and withhold all annuities: say to them, if you will go where we can control and govern you, homes shall be guarantied, and your repose unReflect but a moment on what I have just presented to disturbed. Give them the means of removing, and subsist you, and no one can contend that a treaty is any thing else them aftertheir arrival till they can rear their own provisions. than an "agreement between sovereign and sovereign:" Instead of money, give them to eat and to wear; and, for all its objects are contracts with foreign nations, whose force these, guaranty the faith of your Government, and preis derived from the obligations of good faith; and this was vent future aggressions by the approach of our advenan exposition given without bias, by its application to per- turous white population: set apart a tract of country on sons or to measures, not transiently mentioned, but for- which neither white man nor Indian shall reside; make it a mally and critically elucidated. Did these constitutional neutral territory, and protect it, if necessary, with your expounders dream that any one of our Indian tribes, within arms: adopt for their government, in this new home west the chartered limits of any one of our States, was to bear of the Mississippi, such regulations as your wisdom may the name of sovereign, or was to this Government a foreign dictate, and their wants may call for. Let their happiness, nation, and thereby become a competent party to the and improvement, and prosperity, be the only motive of formation of a contract, the force of which is derived from your action. Plant your schools, your religious instructhe obligations of good faith? Good faith in an unchris-ters there, and there your workshops; and keep from tianised and uninformed savage, whose law was his own them your whiskey venders, called Indian traders, and will, and whose deity was the means of sustaining animal all will be well. To this all the States will assent; those existence; whose home was within the admitted limits of which have the Indians, and those which have none. the very States that gave existence to the Union! this, and the constitution will be inviolate, and future Can this people, then, be sovereign? Can their nations generations will applaud your wisdom and your philanbe foreign nations? Can they be governed by a contract thropy. Do whose force is good faith? Nay, more: can there be a I have taken a greater latitude than is perhaps justified; spectacle more supremely ridiculous than the one ex-but how could I say that I regarded not the assent of the hibited in the singularly strange anomaly of a portion of Indian to the execution of the instrument called a treaty, the people within a State being greater than the State unless I showed that such an instrument was not sanctioned itself; possessing a power withheld from the State by the by any authority which gave power to the General Governassent of that State, centered in another power, which ment? I think I have shown this therefore, I conclude power derived a portion of its very being by such assent. that what is due to Georgia should be paid; and if there In other words, the States constitute the Confederacy; the be a surplus, in pursuance of the liberal principles which States divest themselves of certain powers; a people with- have ever characterized our Government in their interin those States, however, retain this power, and show an course with Indian tribes, I would give it to the Indians, if instance where the part of the whole is stronger than the they called for it; but I would give them a home where whole. I shall pursue this branch of the question no they could convert it to their substantial comfort, and not farther. I think that my position is most fully supported. where they are to use it for the sole purpose of ministerThere are other points, incidental, not connected with ing to their vices. the power, which it may be proper to notice: in doing Mr. GILMER rose, and said that, after the ample diswhich I shall detain the House but a short time. How cussion which the subject before the Committee had reis it that Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and South ceived, he should content himself with stating one or two Carolina, have Indians within their limits who are under no control of Congress, and with whose head men no treaties are made by the agents of the General Government, and solemnly ratified by the President, with the advice of the Senate? During the last session, a treaty made with the Indians of New York was presented to the Senate: it was not ratified, upon the very principle, I presume, that I have contended for-that it was a business of New York and not that of the General Government. There are other considerations which I feel bound here to present, VOL. V.-30 facts connected with it, and adding a few necessary com- H. or R.] Georgia Claims. [JAN. 16, 1829. remain of the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, after satisfying all the Georgia claimants. there would, most probably, be no balance whatever. Mr. G. said that this matter would be better understood by a knowledge of the circumstances under which that con- Mr. G. said that he would proceed to show that the tract was entered into. In 1821, commissioners, on the United States' Government had not done justice to the part of the United States, proceeded to make a treaty citizens of Georgia in its adjudication of their demands with the Creek Indians, for the extinguishment of their against the Creek Indians. They had been told that they title to lands in Georgia, in pursuance of an appropriation of should be satisfied, because that adjudication was made by money specially made by Congress for that purpose; that, an arbiter chosen by themselves. The proper answer to according to instructions given to those commissioners by which, [Mr. G. said] was, that that circumstance aggrathe War Department, (and here he wished the Chairman vated the feelings excited by the injustice done them, es of the Committee on Indian Affairs to correct him if he pecially as that arbiter had gained in proportion to their were in error) they were not to exceed ten cents per acre loss. This Government never can compensate the citiin price, for what they should acquire of the Creeks. zens of Georgia for the injuries they received from their That, accordingly, the commissioners had contracted with savage neighbors. Those injuries could not be estimated that tribe that it should cede to the United States, for the be-in money. Mr. G. said that the most rigid rules had been nefit of Georgia, four and a half millions of acres, for which imposed by the Government upon itself, in allowing the they were to receive four hundred and fifty thousand dollars. claims of the citizens of Georgia. He did not intend to That, after these terms had been agreed upon, but before say that the Government intended thereby to do injustice to the treaty had been signed, commissioners on the part of those citizens. He thought that the peculiar circumstanGeorgia presented to the Creek chiefs, claims of the citizens ces under which those claims had originated had never of that State against their tribe, amounting to the sum of been considered by the Government. Had that been done, two hundred and eighty thousand dollars, and required that he believed it would have been convinced that the two they should be adjusted. It was then agreed, between hundred and fifty thousand dollars was a very inadequate the several parties, that the Creeks should receive of the satisfaction of those claims. United States two hundred thousand dollars, in money, Mr. G. then proceeded to say, that, during the Revofor their land, and the remaining two hundred and fifty lutionary war, the inhabitants of Georgia were, at one thousand dollars, which they were to have received, should time, almost entirely driven beyond its limits, by the Creek be paid by the United States to the State of Georgia, for Indians and their allies. At its conclusion, feelings of the benefit of her citizens, who had received injuries from hostility had not ceased to exist. Repeated injuries were the Creeks; subject, however, to the investigation and inflicted upon the frontier inhabitants, which the weakness determination of the President of the United States. In of the State Government rendered it unable to punish. pursuance of which agreement, [Mr. G. observed] the Attempts were frequently made to conciliate the Creeks. commissioners of Georgia gave to the Creek tribe a re- Treaty after treaty was made, from 1783 to 1790. They ceipt in full of all claims, debts, damages, and property, were, however, broken as often as made, without the which the citizens of that State had against that tribe, Government having the power to enforce them. The prior to 1802. And the United States agreed to pay to frontiers were very extensive, and the population so scatthe citizens of Georgia, those claims, debts, damages, and tered that the Indians had an easy access into the country, property, provided the same did not exceed two hundred every where, for the purposes of plunder. The people and fifty thousand dollars. Mr. G. observed that each were compelled to protect themselves by fortifications of of the parties to this contract seemed to have had equal their own making. Block houses were erected by them, reason to be satisfied. The Indians had sold their land and manned by voluntary service, in order to intercept and for a larger consideration than usual, and, with two hun-punish the predatory parties of the Indians. This service dred and fifty thousand dollars of the price, had paid an ac- was extremely burthensome to inhabitants just arrived count which the Georgians had against them of thirty years' from distant parts of the United States, and with scanty standing, most of which they had frequently acknowledg- means of support. Mr. G. continued to say that the loss ed to be just; and amounting to the sum of two hundred of slaves, horses, and cattle, could not then be repaired and eighty thousand dollars. The Georgians were very by the people, as they could at the present time. The much pleased, because, by the construction which the value of such property was far greater then than at preUnited States had put upon the constitution, their own sent. The country was to be cleared of its forests to fit State Government had not the power of compelling the it for cultivation. Labor was not to be hired. There was Creeks to restore their property, or otherwise to do them no supplying the place of a lost horse or stolen cattle, be justice; by which, previously, it had seemed as if they cause the people, in moving from Virginia and North were to have been deprived entirely of redress for their Carolina, found it difficult to carry with them a sufficient injuries. And the commissioners of the United States supply for their own use. The loss of cattle [Mr. G. were gratified, because they had been enabled not only to said] was particularly felt, because thereby the people perform the purpose for which they had been originally were deprived of their most usual and cheapest means appointed, by procuring a valuable tract of country for of subsistence. One of the principal inducements to the the State of Georgia, but also to render an essential service settlement of the country had been the advantages which to a large class of injured citizens. There was also a pos- its extensive range presented, abounding, as it did, with sibility, that, by assuming the payment of the claims of grass and cane. the citizens of Georgia, with the power given to the Presi- The exuberance of the natural vegetation of the coundent to adjudicate those claims, the United States might try, instead of proving an advantage to the settlers, had have a less sum to advance than that which it would been frequently the occasion of their greatest losses, by otherwise have been obliged to have paid the Indians. It exposing their horses and stock to the thieving habits of was to be remarked, too, [Mr. G. said] that the United the Indians. But the injuries [Mr. G. said] which the States' commissioners had taken care that this Govern- frontier inhabitants suffered, by having their property ment should not, in any event, pay more than two hun- plundered and destroyed, were accompanied by evils the dred and fifty thousand dollars, and with a farther bene- extent of which could only be known to those who had ficial proviso, that whatever sum should be found due might felt them. He said it was his fortune to have been a rabe paid in five annual instalments, and without interest. Mr. G. observed that, if the view he had taken of the contract between all the parties was correct, he thought there could be no difficulty as to the disposition of what should tive of the county which bordered both on the Creek and Cherokee hunting grounds. He could yet recollect the horrid views of the Indian scalping knife which were presented to him in the dreams of his childhood. From the JAN. 16, 1829.] Georgia Claims. [H. OF R. commencement of the Revolutionary war, until 1794 and portion of the injuries received by the people of Georgia, 1795, the Creek Indians continued to commit occasional from the Creek Indians, previous to the making of that acts of the greatest barbarity upon the frontier people. treaty, were to remain unredressed. Was it right for the The Government had been either unable, or neglected, to United States to take advantage of its own wrong ? furnish the necessary protection to its citizens. After a The second class of claims which had been rejected by military force was finally authorized by this Government, the Government, consisted of those the principal of which and troops had been enlisted from among the people of had been allowed, and upon which interest had been reGeorgia, it was a matter of history, familiar to every mem- fused. Mr. G. said that he had already endeavored to ber of the Committee, that those troops had scarcely yet show that the most liberal allowance ought to be made in been paid. For more than thirty years, year after year, favor of all the claims before the Committee. He did not they had petitioned in vain. Mr. G. said that he had at- consider the claimants as demanding interest of the Gotempted to describe the kind and peculiar value of the vernment, but as insisting upon the equitable lien they property of which the Georgia claimants had been plun- had upon the funds in its hands, for a full and just compendered, by the Creek Indians; their continued apprehen- sation for the injuries they had sustained. He did not sion of Indian attacks; and the want of protection on the consider that interest upon the value of their losses, part of the Government; in order to show, more clearly, from the time when their property was taken or destroythe injustice which had been done them by the manner in ed, would really be ample satisfaction to the claimants for which their claims had been heretofore adjudicated, and the kind of depredations committed upon them, but as furas the best commentary upon the reasoning of the Secre- nishing the only fixed rule by which an uniform estimate tary of War and the Attorney General. could be made. The claim of interest was upon the fund Mr. G. then proceeded briefly to consider the different appropriated for the payment of the claims, and not upon classes of claims which he supposed had been improperly the public treasury. The question really was, whether rejected. First, that for property destroyed previous to the claimants, whose demands had remained unsatisfied the treaty of New York; secondly, that for interest upon for thirty or forty years, had not a more equitable lien upclaims which had been allowed; and, thirdly, that for the on the unexpended balance of the two hundred and fifty value of the increase of those female slaves who had been ta- thousand dollars, for compensation to them for the time they ken by the Creeks, and not restored, according to the con- had lost the use of their property, than any right to it on ditions of treaties. As to the class of claims for property the part of the Government. That compensation to the destroyed, which had been rejected because the treaty of claimants had, however, been resisted, through the opinion New York did not provide for them, Mr. G. said that the of the Attorney General. The claimants would have been treaty at the Indian Springs specially contracted for the better satisfied to have had the justice of their demands payment of property destroyed prior to 1802. This sti- decided upon by the sense of equity of the Chief Magispulation of that treaty had been pressed upon the House trate of their country, by whom, according to compact, with its full weight, by his colleagues and other gentlemen. they were to have been adjudicated, than by the technical It was not his intention to say any thing more upon that rules of the Government's law officer. That high officer subject. He was desirous of showing to the committee had determined that interest did not follow a claim for unthat the provisions of the treaty of New York ought not liquidated damages. Nominally, he was right; but, subto affect injuriously the claims of the citizens of Georgia. stantially, wrong. The claims were not for unliquidated That treaty, he said, was, perhaps, the first act of the damages, but for specific property in the possession of the United States' Government which usurped power which Creek Indians, which belonged to citizens of Georgia, and properly belonged to the States. It was so considered at which the Creek tribe, by various treaties, had promised the time. The first voice heard in the Congress of the to restore to its owners. If the Indians could have been United States, against the encroaching spirit of Federal sued in the courts of law, the remedy for the Georgia dominion, was from a representative of Georgia, in relation claimants would have been an action of trover, in which to the treaty of New York. By that treaty the Govern- they would have been entitled to recover their property, ment of the United States guarantied to the Creek tribe or its full value in lieu thereof, together with damages of Indians, lands which that tribe had previously conveyed equal to the value of the use of the property, from the to Georgia. By it, the United States obtained from the time at which it had been demanded until the termination Creeks a stipulation that they would hold no treaty with of the suit. That was the law of the State within which Georgia. And, by the same treaty, the United States both parties resided. It was a rule of equity that the comagreed that, if any citizens of Georgia should attempt to settle on lands claimed by the Creeks, such citizens should be placed without the protection of the United States, and punished as the Indians thought proper. pensation for injuries should be fully equal to the loss sustained. Was there any reason why the Georgia claimants should not have that justice done them, by their Government, which one citizen could compel of another, by the Mr. G. asked the members of the Committee to examine strict rules of law? Surely, it was not because the Gothat treaty, and judge for themselves whether the citizens vernment had neglected to compel the Creeks to perform of Georgia ought to lose the right to have their injuries the stipulations of their treaties. Had the Government redressed, because compensation was not provided by it. done its duty, the Georgia claimants would have had their What right had the United States' Government to place property restored to them more than thirty years ago. beyond its protection its citizens, who, by virtue of grants It could not be said that the State of Georgia had negof land made to them by the State of Georgia, within her own lected the use of any means in its power to obtain redress limits, and in payment to those citizens for revolutionary for its citizens. [Mr. GILMER then read resolutions of the services, settled on lands which the United States thought Legislature of that State, directing the manner in which proper to consider Indian property? By that treaty, a the claims of its citizens should be proven, and demand citizen of the United States might have been burnt at the made of the Creek Indians.] The Attorney General had Indian stake, without the right of rescue by his Govern- given, as a reason why interest should not be allowed upon ment! It was made, too, by one McGillivray, the son of a the Georgia claims, that the property for which they had tory, and an Indian, who felt by inheritance the deepest been paid had been estimated at double its value. In this malignity, and most unrelenting revenge, towards the peo- he speaks without authority, and most disrespectfully of ple of Georgia. What means had the people of that State the United States' commissioners, and the witnesses by of making known to the United States' Government, at whose oaths that valuation was made. There were many the treaty of New York, their claims for property destroy- other most obvious objections to the opinions of the Attored? And yet, by their omission to do so, a considerable ney General. He had determined, for reasons peculiar H. OF R.] Amendment of the Rules. [JAN. 17, 1829. to himself, not to urge that subject any farther. His col- Mr. RAMSEY addressed the House in support of the league [Mr. WILDE] had performed that duty, in the most resolution. He had been taught, [he said] from his insatisfactory manner. fancy, that a Representative of the people ought always to The third class of claims rejected, [Mr. G. said] was vote viva voce. In Pennsylvania, the constitution says exthat for the increase of those female slaves who had been pressly that such shall be the case. The practice, if adopttaken by the Creek Indians from the citizens of Georgia, ed in this body, would occasion none of the delay which and not restored according to the conditions of their trea- some gentlemen seemed so much to apprehend. In the ties with that State, and those with the United States. Legislature of Pennsylvania, they elected all their officers These claims were founded in that principle of law, by viva voce, and the whole election was usually gone through which the issue of female property followed the state of with in about half an hour. That body lately elected a its mother. The right of the Georgia claimants to recov- State treasurer, and the whole matter did not occupy more er the identical slaves they had lost, was acknowledged by than fifteen minutes. All the delay necessary was the time all the treaties having reference to that kind of property. occupied in calling over the names of the members. Mr. The stipulations of all the treaties was, that the negroes ta- R. said it was his fixed opinion that all persons representken from the citizens of Georgia should be restored, and ing either a county, a State, or the United States, should not that they should be paid for in money. If the Indians have the votes which they gave in their representative cawho were in the possession of the issue of the female slaves pacities recorded. A Representative is merely the mouthcould have been sued in the courts of Georgia, by the ori- piece, the mere agent, of those who send him ; and it is ginal owners of such female slaves, the Georgia claimants their right to know how he has transacted their business. would, no doubt, have recovered. The claimants con- It had been said by some gentleman, yesterday, that, if any tend for no right but what was sanctioned by the law. constituent wanted to know how his Representative had The difficulty had proceeded from the impossibility of com- voted in any particular case, he might call upon him and pelling that branch of the Government which alone had inquire. But how would this be possible in such States as the power of redress in its hands to enforce that right. It Missouri and Illinois, which have but one Representative was well known to all the Southern gentlemen, that female slave property, which was owned thirty years ago, had yielded a much larger profit than any other equal amount of capital whatever. And hence it was [Mr. G. said] that the Georgia claimants, who had lost such property by the acts of the Creek Indians, were entitled to the redress sought for them. on this floor? Those States were nearly as large as the State of Pennsylvania, and the Representative might live in one corner of them. Were his constituents to travel two or three hundred miles to ask such a question? I do not want to lay them under any such necessity. I would have the Representative vote in every case viva voce, and let his vote be put on record, and let his constituents know In conclusion, Mr. G. repeated that, by the treaty at what it has been. I, sir, have had the honor of holding the Indian Springs, the Creek chiefs had contracted to re-offices in the State of Pennsylvania, and have repeatedly linquish a certain quantity of land to the United States, on taken the oath to support the constitution of that State, as condition that it would pay to them two hundred thousand well as the constitution of the United States, and I feel dollars in money, and satisfy the claims of Georgia against partially bound by both those oaths in my action on this their tribes, estimated by the parties at two hundred and floor; nor can I see how any one of my colleagues who eighty thousand dollars. That the value of the lands re-has taken the same oath, can avoid feeling as I do. Sir, linquished by the Indians was considered by them as worth I do not believe they will differ from me; but feel confifour hundred and fifty thousand dollars, thereby making dent they will all go with me in this question. [Here Mr. the consideration received by the United States for its R. quoted to the House a section of the third article of the contract to pay the citizens of Georgia, equal to the sum constitution of Pennsylvania, which directs members of the of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That the Unit- Assembly of that State to vote viva voce, and said he was ed States, having the power to adjudicate the claims of sincerely sorry there was not a similar regulation in the those citizens, had circumscribed them within such narrow Congress of the United States.] He could see no inconbounds that the larger portion of the fund appropriated venience likely to follow the adoption of the resolution be by the Indians for their payment, had, instead of being ap-fore the House. In the Pennsylvania Legislature they plied to that purpose, gone into the Treasury of the Unit-elected not only their speaker, but their clerk, their printed States. That it was inconsistent with her character as er of bills, their printer of laws, their bank directors, their an arbiter, and still more with her national character for directors of bridge companies, and directors of turnpike justice, to deprive her own citizens of a fund which had companies-all these elections were held viva voce--yet been appropriated for the payment of losses sustained by they did not occupy more than half an hour. In this House them, under circumstances of peculiar hardship, and occa- gentlemen had to elect a speaker, clerk, assistant clerk, sioned partly, too, by the neglect or want of power in the and chaplain. Would it not be asked of each member, Government to protect them. He, therefore, confidently when he went home, how he had voted in these elections? trusted that the Committee would support the motion of He had often been asked how A and B had voted, and he his colleague, and determine that it was expedient to have was obliged to answer that he could not tell. What! refarther legislation in favor of the claims of the citizens of plied his constituent-not able to tell? Why not? He reGeorgia. plied that the election was held by ballot. The people always expressed surprise and disapprobation at this reply. Mr. R. concluded by again declaring that his conscience felt bound by his oath in Pennsylvania, and he must there fore vote for the resolution of the gentleman from Kentuc ky. He hoped no gentleman would shrink, on the preThe Committee having risen and reported, Mr. THOMP-sent occasion, but would come up manfully to the ques SON renewed his motion in the House; which, thereupon, tion, and vote for the resolution. on his motion, adjourned. Mr. WEEMS also spoke in favor of the claim. The question being then taken on reversing the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs, it was decided in the negative--yeas 66, nays 74. So the motion was rejected in Committee. SATURDAY, JANUARY 17, 1829. Mr. BARTLETT said he would vote very manfully for the resolution if any reason could be shown why the present mode of election was not a good one, and why the mode proposed would be better. From the commenceThe resolution offered on Thursday, by Mr. WICK-ment of the Government the practice of electing by balLIFFE, coming up as the unfinished business of yesterday attention to the mover of the resolution to hear what evil lot had been uniformly observed; and he had listened with morning AMENDMENT OF THE RULES. |