of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated." Georgia protested because she thought her legislative rights were infringed. Her protest was submitted to Congress in 1787, at a time when many of those who had formed the instrument of confederation were administering the Government, and must be supposed to know the extent of the powers which it conferred.

A long report was made in Congress upon the subject of the protest, denying the ground taken by Georgia and North Carolina, who had also protested, and affirming that the proviso had no such meaning as was contended. I will read a part of that report:

[MAY 18, 1830.

uncommon cases. The committee find it difficult to reencile the said construction of the recited clause made by the two States, and their proceedings before mentioned, especially those of Georgia, with what they conceive to be the intentions of those who made the said motion; for the committee presume that the delegates of Georgia do not mean that Congress is bound to send their forces to punish such nations as the State shall name, to act in aid of the State authority; to send her forces and recall them as she shall see fit to make war or peace. Such an idea cannot be consistent with the dignity of the Union, and the priociples of the federal compact. But the committee coalso the general opinion, that all wars and hostile measures against the Creeks, or any other independent tribe of lo dians, ought to be conducted under the authority of the Union, at least where the forces of the Union are employed; that the power to conduct a war clearly implies the power to examine into the justice of the war, to make peace, and adjust the terms of it; and that, therefore, the terms or words of the said motion, if it be adopted by Congress at all, must be varied accordingly."

Such, sir, was the opinion of Congress of its powers under the confederation, and it practised upon that opinion. Not long after this, the present constitution of the United States was formed and ratified, Georgia assenting. One article of that instrument is: "All treaties made, and which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." The treaty of Hopewell was a treaty then "made." Its validity as a treaty had been already asserted by Congress. Georgis assented to this article of the constitution, thereby sanctioning the treaty of Hopewell, and giving it validity, if it had none before. Georgia yielded the point in controversy: by virtue, as she supposed, of her reserved legislative rights she had made a treaty, and acquired lands by it. But of what use were that treaty and those lands to her? None at all. And, by the compact of 1802, she expressly stipulated that the United States should extinguish the Indian title to the county of Tallahassee-the lands which the Indians had before yielded. Sir, was not this an admission that the treaty which the State had previously made was of no validity; that the Indian title still remained to be extinguished? The confederation did not recognise the right of Georgia to make a treaty, and Georgia, therefore, did not acquire the lands, but had to call in aid the power of the United States to do it for her.

"But there is another circumstance, far more embar-ceive that it is the opionion of the honorable movers, and rassing, and that is, the clause in the confederation relative to managing all affairs with the Indians, &c., is differently construed by Congress and the two States within whose limits the said tribes and disputed lands are. The construction contended for by these States, if right, appears to the committee to leave the federal powers, in this case, a mere nullity, and to make it totally uncertain on what principle Congress is to interfere between them and the said tribes. The States not only contend for this construction, but have actually pursued measures in conformity to it. North Caro lina has undertaken to assign lands to the Cherokees, and Georgia has proceeded to treat with the Creeks concerning peace, lands, and the objects usually the principal ones in almost every treaty with the Indians. This construction appears to the committee not only to be productive of confusion, disputes, and embarrassments, in managing af fairs with the independent tribes within the limits of the States, but by no means the true one. The clause referred to, is: "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." In forming 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; and that, in managing affairs with them, the principal objects have been those of making war and peace, purchasing certain tracts of their lands, fixing the boundaries between them and our people, and preventing the latter Such was the authority possessed by the United States settling on lands left in possession of the former. The under the articles of confederation, and such was the expowers necessary to these objects appear to the committee to ercise of it. Not long after the treaty of Hopewell was be indivisible, and that the parties to the confederation must made, and the powers of the General Government asserted have intended to give them entire to the Union, or to have in the report I have read, the present constitution was given them entire to the State. These powers, before the adopted, conferring upon the United States the same povrevolution, were possessed by the King, and exercised by ers of peace and war-of regulating the affairs with the him; nor did they interfere with the legislative right of the Indians, without the limitations as to the legislative rights colony within its limits; this distinction, which was then, of the States, which was the foundation of the Georgia and may be now taken, may perhaps serve to explain the protest. The restriction under the confederation was proviso, part of the recited clause. The laws of the State found to be embarrassing and obscure, and therefore was can have no effect upon a tribe of Indians, or their lands, omitted; and, as Mr. Madison, in a number of the Fede within the limits of the State, so long as that tribe is ralist, referred to by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. independent, and not a member of the State; yet the STORES] says, was designedly omitted. The United States, laws of the State may be executed upon debtors, crimi- therefore, derives its authority under the constitution, nals, and other proper objects of those laws, in all and, in the very same year in which it was ratified, com parts of it; and, therefore, the Union may make stipu- menced negotiations and concluded treaties with Indians lations with any such tribe, secure it in the enjoyment of living within the limits of a State. Did they do this incan all or part of its lands, without infringing upon the legis- tiously, ignorantly? No, sir; they proceeded in the most lative right in question. It cannot be supposed the State cool and cautious manner. The Government was circumhas the powers mentioned, without making the recited spect and deliberate. The then President did not take a clause useless, and without absurdity in theory as well as single step without the previous consent of the Senate. He in practice; for the Indian tribes are justly considered the went to that body in person, and inquired whether he common friends or enemies of the United States, and no would be authorized to offer the guaranty and to pledge particular State can have an exclusive interest in the man- our faith. The response was that he should be so autho #gement of affairs with any of the tribes, except in somerized. The States interested heard the stipulations which

MAY 18, 1830.]

Removal of the Indians.

[H. OF R.

The seventh article of the treaty of Holston contains the guaranty, of which so much has been said in this debate; and this is the explanation which the committee put upon that article

were proposed, and they set up no objection. It was proposed to them that the President should treat with the Indians within the limits of the State, and Georgia assented to it. And now are we to be told that the General Government had no authority, and that Georgia is not bound by "It was, therefore, thought necessary, in order to ensure the treaty The treaty was made in conformity with their peace, that some strong and decisive evidence should be advice and consent, and was subsequently ratified by the given of the determination of the Government to prevent, Senate also, with the consent of Georgia; and are we now by force, any further intrusions upon the lands reserved asked where was our authority to make it? Those who deny for the Indians, and a guaranty of their boundary was the right must account for so extraordinary a procedure. thought of as the means best calculated to effect that obGentlemen say they can well account for it; and the so-ject. It was probably a device, adopted more for the inlution is, that the treaty was for their benefit; and, therefore, though the United States had no authority to make it, yet that they submitted to it because it was for their interest, knowing all the time that the Government had no right to do it.

Sir, it is a well known rule in morals and in common sense, that every one making a promise is bound by it in the sense in which he knows the other party to understand it. When Georgia, therefore, laid by, and saw and knew the promises which this Government was making to the Indians, and yielded her assent, shall she be precluded from asserting that either she or we are not bound, according to the sense we then knew the Indians put upon those promises By this rule our guaranty is to be measured; and I, for one, will never move an inch to relieve a State which thus lies by, and permits us to enter into engagements, and receives the benefit of our contracts, and at last comes forward with the complaint that we had no right to make them. I say to Georgia, if we had no right without your consent, your consent has been obtained. It is too late. You are estopped,

timidation of the whites, than for any effect it was likely to have upon the Indians themselves."

The guaranty was necessary to secure peace; in other words, the Indians would not make peace without the gua ranty. But, instead of being for their benefit, and obliga tory upon us, it was probably a device for the intimidation of the whites. Sir, I deny this assertion, and I call upon the gentleman to produce his authority for it. How absurd an idea! how utterly preposterous! Will the gentleman tell me that a solemn promise in a treaty with another party was not intended to have any effect upon those to whom it was made, but was a device to intimidate the party making it! Could we not intimidate and restrain ourselves by laws! I repudiate the idea: I cannot consent thus to fix an indelible stigma on the fair fame of my country. Sir, the language of the treaty was sincere, intended to be obligatory upon us, and should be observed most sacredly.

The great object of the gentleman is to procure the removal of the Indians; and to obtain their consent, he proposes in the bill that the President shall solemnly gua Sir, we have heard another doctrine, at which I was, I ranty"-the very words of the treaty of Holston-solemnly confess, both astonished and alarmed. We are told that guaranty to them the country to which we propose to send these national treaties are "expedients," resorted to mere- them. The gentleman says that the guaranty in that treaty ly to accomplish our own ends, made for our interest, and was "probably a device for the intimidation of the whites." to be construed for our benefit. We have a very extra- Well, sir, let the project be executed, and, within a period ordinary history of them in the sixteenth page of the com- that the gentleman may live to see, the whites will again mittee's report. It is there said that we are in a critical press upon them, and say you must go-move farther west. situation. Difficulties existed with respect to the forts on When the Indians inquire, for what cause, the same reasons our western frontier, and above the Mississippi, with Great will be given then that are given now. All history shows Britain and Spain. We had just come out of a long war, that if you remain near us you will be destroyed. The and were poor: that we were in no condition to incur red man cannot live in contact with the white. Humanity Indian hostilities; and in this particular juncture General and your own interests require your removal. Besides, we Washington was called upon to settle the mode of conduct- have a right to the land. Our ancestors discovered it. ing our relations with the Indian tribes, and to secure Are we not civilized? And has not civilization a right to our peace with them; that he adopted the practice of prevail over savage life? Suppose it be so, reply the Inregulating our affairs with them by treaties. Sir, are they dians, but we were sent here not by our consent, but by any the less obligatory because they were made when we your power; and did you not "solemnly guaranty" to us were in difficulty! Had we told these Indians, we are now these limits! Very true; but were you so ignorant as not in a critical condition, we want you to treat with us, but, by to know that our guaranty was only an expedient? only a and by, when we get out of trouble, and grow powerful device? Had you not sagacity enough to perceive that it and strong, we shall consider our compacts as expedients was only a plan to get rid of you? to send you off out of -mere matters of legislation over you; do you think the way? Were you not told by us at the time, that " Inthey would have ceded their lands If the Indians, in dian treaties were only a species of legislation?" Were the day of our calamity, received our plighted faith, and you not told by a committee of Congress that these things yielded up their territories, so much the more reason is were only a device? That in our conduct towards you there that we should now observe them as sacredly bind-"one of those expedients was to appear to do nothing ing upon us. There is a moral obligation, beyond all which concerned" you, "either in the appropriation of treaties, to keep our promises in good faith in the day of your hunting grounds, or in controlling your conduct withour strength and power, to which in the day of our weak out your consent?" Nothing but appearance-really and ness we were indebted for security and peace. Yet the truly we did as we pleased. gentleman at the head of one of the committees of this Sir, I have no doubt the gentleman is sincere in the guaHouse has told us that these engagements were mere ranties he proposes to give, and intends to bind the nation expedients" to obtain peace and get the Indian lands. in all future time. If he should live to see his assurances Sir, if such is that gentleman's opinion, I am sorry he ex- thus explained and chaffered away, he will feel something pressed it to the world; for I am not willing to affix such of the emotion which Washington and the fathers of the a stigma on our national fame; I am not willing to commit country would have experienced, could they have anticithe honor of this nation to the gentleman's keeping; and pated that their solemn assurances are to be thus lightly having as one of the humblest citizens of the republic, regarded. some share in her faith and her character, I protest for myself, and for those I represent, against any such interpretation of our engagements.

[Mr. BELL interposed, and said the report had not been correctly understood-that he did not contend that the guaranty was not binding.]

H. OF R.]

Removal of the Indians.

[MAY 18, 1830.

Sir, I regret very much if I have misrepresented any as will in no event expose us to the censures of the world. sentiment of the report. If the gentleman will point out Sir, I have before me many documents which I had inany part of it which he wishes to be read, I will cheer-tended to use, illustrative of the policy of the Government fully do so, and abide by his correction.

[Mr. BELL declined.]

Sir, I have commented upon it as I understand it, and I quote the language which I find in it. The report gives another reason why the guaranty should not be understood in the sense we affix to it

towards the Indians, as well of the Crown before the revolution, as of the Congress under the confederation, and since under the present constitution. In all these I find abundant vindication of Indian rights, to the full extent I have endeavored to maintain them; but I forbear to trespass upon the kind indulgence of the committee by consuming their time in reading them.

"The victory of the 20th of August, 1794, over the northern Indians, with whom. the Creeks and Cherokees I will now proceed, sir, to a brief consideration of some had kept up a regular correspondence; the expedition other topics involved in the bill before us, and which have which was secretly planned, for carrying the war into the been discussed at much length by the member from TenCherokee country, and which was successfully conducted nessee, [Mr. BELL] The gentleman computes the exby the suffering frontier inhabitants; and the pacifie dispense which will be incurred in the prosecution of this position of the Spanish authorities of Florida which pre-measure, at the most, not exceeding five millions of dolceded the treaty of 1795 with Spain, were the actual re-lars. The very nature of the subject forbids accurate and storers of peace."

"After this time, the Government was under no obligation to renew the guaranty contained in the treaties of 1790 and 1791, with the Creeks and Cherokees, but, as it has done so, it only shows that that stipulation was not believed to affect the nature of the title by which those tribes held their lands, or to introduce any new principle in relation to their rights generally."

Thus, sir, it seems that our pacific relations with the southern tribes were the result of a victory obtained by General Wayne over the northern Indians, with whom the Cherokees and Creeks had some alliance-that they were therefore vanquished that after this we were under no obligation to renew the guaranty, and, having renewed it, it is not therefore to be construed as affecting the nature of their title, or the extent of their rights.

minute calculations. As a general principle, we all know that public expenditures vastly exceed previous estimates. Nothing is more common. I am not possessed of sufficient data to form an estimate with any pretensions to aecuracy: but, sir, when you consider that sixty thousand people are to be removed a distance of several hundred miles; that they are to be subsisted for one year after they have reached the destined land; that customary presents and rewards are to be given to them; that all their improvements, possessions, and property, which they leave behind, are to be paid for; that agents, commissioners, and contractors are to be employed and compensated; and, moreover, that you will be obliged to purchase of the tribes beyond the Mississippi a right to plant others there; I think the most orthodox believer in the dangers of a redundant treasury will have no occasion to be alarmed for Sir, is this the rule by which treaties and compacts are the liberties of the country. Gentlemen who have reto be construed? I had supposed that the true mode of sisted the prosecution of internal improvement as tending arriving at the meaning of any clause was to examine and to corrupt the States, will have the satisfaction to see this weigh the terms in which it is couched-to compare it with source of their disquietude removed. But, sir, I shall the general spirit of the instrument, and not to inquire into make no objection on the score of expense. Protect the the inducements and obligations resting upon the parties Indians in their rights and possessions where they now at its formation. Suppose this guaranty to be the merest are, and you may have almost any sum to effect their regratuity in the world on our part, that we were in truth moval, when it can be done with their free, voluntary, ununder no obligation to make it, does it thence follow that biassed consent. The gentleman seemned to anticipate an it is to have no meaning, or a restricted meaning? Have we objection, on the ground of a want of constitutional power thence a right to construe it away? Surely not. If we have in Congress to make the appropriation. I shall say but a made the guaranty, we must be bound by the guaranty, in word on that subject. If these tribes are to be regarded its true, full sense, as understood at the time of making it. as distinct communities, independent of the States where This idea of abrogating the force of treaties is of modern they reside, possessed of lands which will belong to us origin. The parties who now favor it were formerly among when their title is extinguished, I can see no valid objec the most zealous defenders of the faith and obligations of tion of the kind the gentleman anticipated But if they are treaties. In 1827, Georgia contended most manfully that to be regarded as individual citizens of a State, subject to treaties were sacred, binding, immutable. She demanded its laws, possessing property as individuals, and protected the full performance of the stipulations with the Creeks at in its enjoyment, then I do not easily perceive the authority the Indian Springs, and wholly denied the power even of which we possess to make the appropriation. Suppose, the parties to the compact to rescind it, though it was sir, that some fifty thousand of the citizens of New York founded in gross fraud and corruption. In every line of or New England wish to emigrate to the West, and ask her remonstrance we perceive the tenacity and force with the aid of Government to enable them to accomplish that which she clung to the validity of treaties. Sir, in a com- object; would such an application be listened to for a mo munication to which I have already referred, from the Pre- ment? Should we not be reminded that the powers of sident to the Creek Indians, in which he endeavors to con- the General Government were all "enumerated," and vince them that the treaties are not binding upon us, if construed as impairing the sovereignty of Georgia, he claims from them the most exact performance of their obligations: "Our peaceful mother earth has been stained by the blood of the white man, and calls for the punishment of his murderers, whose surrender is now demanded, under the solemn obligation of the treaty which your chiefs and warriors, in council, have agreed to. To preserve peace, you must comply with your own treaty." With what face can we require of them the full, faithful performance of their promises, when in the same breath we tell them that we had no authority to give the assurances on our part? Sir, let us construe and so perform our engagements as to preserve the national faith and honor,

among them there was none authorizing it to appropriate the public treasury to enable individuals to change their location? Sir, this hall would echo with the perpetual reiteration of "constitutional scruples."

The gentleman [Mr. BELL] has urged the passage of this bill, on the ground of humanity to the Indians, and the promotion of their own interests and happiness. He informs the committee that the tribes proposed to be removed are a degraded, declining race, who are rapidly wasting away, and will, ere long, be destroyed, if they remain in their present situation. The lessons of history are adduced to show that the red man cannot live in contiguity with the white; that it is the inevitable fate of the savage to perish whenever civilization has planted its foot within their con

MAY 18, 1830.]

Removal of the Indians.

[H. OF R:

"The condition of many tribes west of the Mississippi is the most pitiable that can be imagined. During several seasons in every year they are distressed by famine, in which many die for want of food, and during which the living child is often buried with the dead mother, because no one could spare it as much food as would sustain it through its helpless infancy. This description applies to Sioux, Osages, and many others, but I mention those because they are powerful tribes, and live near our borders, and my official station enables me to know the exact truth. It is in vain to talk to people in this condition about learning and religion."

fines. However just this may be in the general, it has no long can their schools and their churches be maintained in application to the southern tribes, particularly to the Chero- the bosom of the wilderness? Sir, they will be only ob kees, who are chiefly interested in the subject before us.jects of plunder to the stranger and more savage bands They are not hordes of wandering savages; they are not around them. They will be overrun; and, if they resist, hunters. They till the earth; they have mechanics' shops it will only provoke extermination. Can they till the and trades, schools and churches, cultivated fields and ground, when its fruits will ripen only to be gathered and flocks-have made great advances in civilization-formed consumed by hordes of savages, who know no law but a written code of government-established a press. Is it force, no right but power? Sir, I firmly believe they for the benefit and happiness of such a people to be ex cannot exist in the country to which you are about to send pelled from their country, and planted again in the depths them; and I can give no countenance to a project which of the forest, to resume the wild state from which they had contemplates their removal against their wishes and their emerged? Sir, I do not find anywhere in the records of remonstrances. We have, among the papers before us, a history that the condition of such a people can be promoted very affecting account of the distress and privations which by such a measure. Least of all do I find that the interest the tribes west of the Mississippi already endure. I will or honor of any nation can be promoted by a violation read an extract which has been often quoted, but which of its public treaties-an infraction of its plighted faith. cannot be too often called to our recollection, from the Whether it be for the benefit of the Indians to remove or letter of General Clark. not, is a question for them to decide; and so long as they shall determine that it is not for their advantage and happiness, and refuse to comply, so long are they entitled to protection and security in all their rights. In several of our treaties with them, we have had in view their permanent residence in the territories which they possess. We have held out inducements for them to become cultivated, and have stipulated to furnish them "with useful implements of husbandry," for the purpose of reclaiming them from the savage state. The treaty of 1817 is too explicit on this point to be omitted. The preamble recites, that, in 1808. a delegation of the Cherokee nation signified to the President the anxious desire of one part of the nation "to The honorable gentlemau answered this objection in engage in the pursuit of agriculture and civilized life in anticipation; and what was his answer? Why, that disthe country they then occupied;" and that this portion tress and suffering of this description were common among wished for a division of the country, and an assignment of Indians-that it is incident to their character and habits lands for that purpose; that "by thus contracting their and modes of life-that it is not more frequent now than it society within narrow limits, they proposed to begin the always has been. And is this a sufficient answer? Are we establishment of fixed laws and a regular government." to send a whole people from their abodes of comfort, to Another portion of the tribe wished to pursue the hunter scenes of distress like these, with the cold answer that it is life, and for that end, were desirous to remove beyond no hardship, because such sufferings are common? Bethe Mississippi. The President (Mr. Jefferson) answered, cause the tribes west of the Mississippi are compelled "the United States, my children, are the friends of both to endure these distressing privations, therefore it is no parties, and, so far as can reasonably be asked, are willing hardship to send other tribes there to endure them also l to satisfy the wishes of both. Those who remain may be Will such an answer satisfy benevolence, philanthropy, assured of our patronage, our aid, and good neighborhood." humanity? Will it alleviate the pangs of the civilized Such was the preamble; and it concludes, "Now know Cherokee, when he consigns his dead wife and his living ye, that to carry into effect the before recited promises child to the earth, to be told that such scenes are of frewith good faith," &c., the parties concluded the treaty. Iquent occurrence ask, if we have not "assured" them of a permanent resi And, sir, how will these sufferings be aggravated by such dence, if we have not promised them "our good neigh- an accumulation of numbers? The country does not now borhood;" and now that the experiment has so far been afford subsistence enough for its population. How much successful, and they have made rapid advances in civiliza-greater will be the deficiency, when sixty thousand more tion, are we to be told that humanity and their own inte- are added to its starving inhabitants? The gentleman has rests require them to be thrust again into the wilderness? said that the country is well adapted to their wants-aboundSir, what will be their condition in the country to which it ing in timber and water, and capable of a high degree of is proposed they shall remove? The gentleman has de- cultivation. If it were so, from the causes I have mention scribed the region, about six hundred miles in length, and ed they can never possess and cultivate it in security. We two hundred and fifty in width, between the western boun- have been called upon at the present session to make a daries of Arkansas and Missouri and the base of the Rocky military road of several hundred miles in extent upon the Mountains, somewhere within the limits of which is to be western borders of Arkansas and Missouri, and to mount their ultimate destination. The gentleman's plan is to ten companies of infantry for the protection of the white locate the southern tribes among the Cherokees, Creeks, inhabitants against the predatory incursions of the Indians. Choctaws, and Chickasaws, who have already moved. Be- The delegate from Arkansas assures us that the security sides these parts of tribes, the Osages are there, and the of that frontier depends upon these measures. How much warlike bands of the Camanches, Sioux, and Pawnees more will the feeble tribes you propose to send still farroam over the vast prairies in search of game, or on their ther into the forests, need your protection? The gentlepredatory excursions. It is now designed to plaut a civi- man has not taken into his account of expenses those lized colony amid a people of these savage habits. They which will be incurred in keeping up a military establishare not hunters, whom we are about to send there. Agri- ment in that vicinity, which will be absolutely necessary culture is their employment. They are not warriors. We to preserve peace among the different tribes, who will have induced them to lay aside the war club and the toma- find perpetual sources of discord when crowded together hawk, and to substitute the peaceful implements of hus- iu the small limits assigned them.

bandry. They have flocks, and property of various But, sir, is the country suited to their wants? The gendescriptions. How long can they retain it in the neigh- tleman must allow me to say that I repose little confidence borhood of the warlike tribes I have enumerated? How in the information he has received upon this subject. De

H. OF R.]

Removal of the Indians.

[MAY 18, 1830.

scriptions from other sources give a different account. I, "There is one other subject on which I think it is due will only refer, however, to the opinion of a delegation of the Chickasaw nation, who were sent last year west of the Mississippi, "in search of a home." It is among the documents upon our tables. They could find no country to which they would consent to remove, except one small tract which was already occupied. The vacant lands, they said, were not adapted to their convenience. “If we had found a country to please us, it was our intention to exchange. It is yet our wish to do so. But we cannot consent to remove to a country destitute of a single corresponding feature to the one in which we at present reside." Such, sir, is the information we have received from the ludians themselves. If they wise to remove, I would furnish them assistance to do it. But I would first secure them in their rights where they now reside. I would then furnish them the most ample information possible of the country in which it is proposed to locate them, give them every means of forming a correct judgment as to their situation and condition in their new abodes, and then leave the decision to them.

to justice to give my testimony, whatever it may be worth Whether the Cherokees are wise in desiring to remain here or not, I express no opinion. But it is certainly just that it should be known whether or not they do, as a body, wish to remain. It is not possible for a person to dwell among them without hearing much on the subject. I have heard much. It is said abroad that the common people would gladly remove, but are deterred by the chiefs and a few other influential men. It is not so. I say with the utmost assurance, it is not so. Nothing is plainer than that it is the earnest wish of the whole body of the people to remain where they are. They are not overawed by the chiefs. Individuals may be overawed by popular opinion, but not by the chiefs. On the other hand, if there were a chief in favor of removal, he would be overawed by the people. He would know that he could not open his mouth in favor of such a proposition, but on pain, not only of the failure of his re-election, but of popular odium and scorn. The whole tide of national feeling sets, in one strong and unbroken current, against a removal to the West."

When, sir, under these circumstances they shall decide to remove, I apprehend no objection will be made to it. With this evidence before me, I must be pardoned when It has been urged, however, very zealously by the gentle- I tell the honorable chairman [Mr. BELL] that I do not remen [Messrs. BELL and LUMPKIN] that the great mass of pose confidence in the information with which he has been the southern Indians are now willing and anxious to re furnished, and has presented to the House. It seems to be move, but are restrained and kept in awe by the chiefs assumed, without evidence, and against evidence, that the and white men who reside among the tribes. Where is Indians are willing to remove, but are restrained by some the evidence of this? Upon what facts do the gentlemen overpowering cause. In 1827, the complaint of Georgis make the assertion? Is it to be found in the circumstance was, that the Government had neglected its duty, and, inthat they have uniformly and firmly resisted all your offers stead of adopting a course which would terminate in the and solicitations? Commissioners were sent last year to removal of the Indians, had pursued a policy calculated to negotiate upon this subject, with instructions so peculiar, render their residence permanent. There was no comthat I cannot forbear to advert to them. What were these plaint then against the chiefs. It was all the fault of Goinstructions! Why, sir, not to permit their official charac- verument. Well, sir, we have now a Government co-opeter to be known, but to appear among the Indians as their rating with Georgia. This ground of complaint is removed. friends and advisers, solicitous only for their benefit and Still the Indians refuse to go. Some new reason must be happiness. In this mode their confidence was to be won. found for their refusal. Sir, would it not be better to inThey were not to convene the Indiaus in council, agree-quire into the fact, than to be searching for the causes of ably to uniform custom whenever negotiations were to be that which is only assumed to exist! Is it not natural and conducted with them, but to see the chiefs and other reasonable that they should be unwilling to abandon their influential men, not together, but apart, at their own homes? Are they not men? Are they not capable of athouses" and when other arguments and advice should fail, tachments? Have they no ties to bind them to the land of "offers to them of extensive reservations in fee simple, and their birth-to the soil which covers the ashes of their faother rewards, would, it is hoped, result in obtaining their thers? Is not their country dear to them? Sir, in their acquiescence." So it seems the Indian territory, the pro- view, that earth wears a deeper verdure, and the heavens perty of the whole nation, was to be obtained by offers of pour a more unclouded radiance, than in all the world be"rewards" to the chiefs and influential men, to procure sides. It is unnatural, it is unreasonable to suppose that their assent. Is this the mode in which Indian rights are they are “anxious” to quit the scenes of their childhood, to be treated Bribery to the chiefs? What is the reason to seek a new home, far off, in the lands of the setting sun. given for not convening the Indians in council? A most And, sir, how are they to be removed? The only pro remarkable one truly. It is in these words; "The past ject I have seen is that contained in the "report from the has demonstrated their utter aversion to this mode, whilst it has been made equally clear that another mode promises greater success. In regard to the first, the Indians have seen in the past that it has been by the results of councils that the extent of their country has been from time to time diminished. They all comprehend this." Now, sir, it is represented that the Indians are willing to exchange their country, and to remove. If so, why not convene them in council, as it is by means of councils that the extent of their country has been diminished? Would they have such an utter aversion to this mode." if they were really willing to adopt the measures to which such a mode leads? No, sir. They see it has been by councils that their country has been diminished, and they are opposed to councils because they are opposed to any further diminution.

Upon this subject we have the testimony of a gentleman resident among the Cherokees, whom the member from Georgia [Mr. LUMPKIN] represents as worthy of all confidence, and whose word surely he will not deny. I will read an extract of a letter from Mr. Worcester, published among the documents of the Senate:

46

bureau of Indian Affairs" to the Secretary of War, and by him transmitted to Congress. The proposition is, that they shall be removed by contract"-and the recom mendation of this plan is, that it can be done much cheaper than in any other mode. By contract, sir! What! are sixty thousand human beings-the sick, the aged, the infirm, children, and infants-to be transported hundreds of miles, over mountains and rivers and forests, by contract ! By those who will engage to perform the service for the smallest sum? Are you to hold out such inducements to long and fatiguing marches-to scanty and cheap provi sions? Will you place these hapless, deceived, and abused people at the mercy of contractors, whose only object is gain in whose bosoms Indian wrongs and Indian suffering will find but little sympathy. Sir, if this is the mode in which the measure is to be executed, I will never yield my sanction to it, though the Indians should be willing to remove. No, sir, if they must go, let their path be made smooth. If the treasury is to be opened, let it be opened wide enough to relieve all their wants; to render their situa tion, bad at the best, as tolerable as the exigeney will admit.