ing Proviso, "that nothing in this constitution shall be construed to affect the claim of the United States to vacant lands ceded to them by the late treaty of peace.' This motion was withdrawn to make room for the following, "nothing in the constitution shall be construed to alter the claims of the United States or of the individual States, to the western territory; but all such claims may be examined into and decided upon by the Supreme Court of the United States." This proposition was made to give way to the following, which was finally adopted and is a part of the present constitution, Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the U. States, and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State." To this, the following amendment was proposed, to wit, "but all such claims may be examined into and decided upon by the Supreme Court of the United States," which was rejected— the general government was to have nothing to do with this matter in any shape or form whatever. This is a full and faithful history of the. subject of territory and Indian affairs throughout all the deliberations of the convention, and I assert that nothing further can be found. The question then, presents itself with no common warmth of enquiry, Whence arises the right of the general government, to treat for Indian lands, to manage and control Indian affairs, within the limits of States ? May I not consider myself as addressing a community who will admit that the Federal government has no power our of the constitution? That whatever it does, must be sanctioned by an explicit grant wITHIN that instrument ? If this be yielded, then I say the question is a plain one, and reduced to a compass that any capacity, however humble, may understad. It is one which stands within the reach of the most common intellect, where subtlety cannot perplex and sophistry bewilder. Let us go to the constitution and carefully turn over its pages until we find the expression "thus it is written;" and if this cannot be found, I ask what is the consequence? Does it not follow that the general government has not in the right? In relation to territory, the clauses I have quoted above are all that are contained in the constitution, and the term Indian, does not occur, in that instrument but in one solitary place, to wit, "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. The general government surely does not pretend to claim the right under this clause, for if it does, it will, with equal right, have the power to treat for the lands and manage the affairs of foreign nations, and of all the States, because they are found in connection, and expressed in the exact terms, with that of the Indian tribes. No, the truth is, they have no such right. It has never been claimed until recently, and it is now asserted from power alone. The other States, standing in the same situation of Georgia have never been interrupted in the right to dispose of their lands in any manner they pleased; to treat with the Indians whenever they thought proper, and to confine them to limited bounds at pleasure. All this has long since been done by them without a doubt of its propriety, and would have been done by Georgia, but for the fatal * Journal Federal Convention, page 310. confidence in the general government, founded upon the articles of cession of 1802. These, so unfaithfully regarded, do not relinquish to that government the right contended for by them. Those articles were for the benefit of Georgia, and not the Union; the latter undertook for a valuable, yes, very very valuable consideration, to extinguish the Indian title for Georgia; but who does not perceive that Georgia never parted with the original right to extinguish it herself, if necessary-if driven to it, for instance, by prevarication and bad faith on the part of an obligor lost to the very first principles of common honesty? Because the State of Georgia, from motives of peace and harmony, has long acquiesced in the practice of the general government to treat with and regulate the Indians within her acknowledged limits and jurisdiction, behold! now, they seize that as a right, which was yielded as a privi lege; a privilege too which Georgia can, and will, if she is true to herself, resume, for it rests upon no higher obligations than bare permission, and no claim either legal or equitable: she has bound herself in no writ ten instrument to that effect, and she has received nothing by way of consideration from the general government. Then what hinders Georgia from saying to the Cherokees, if she wishes it, "stand back to the line we shall prescribe to you." Does any one imagine that the general government would join the Indians in an insurrection against this state? Would it become their ally against one of its own members, from whom it has derived a part of its power. Have the States vested the Union with power to war against themselves, in support of other na tions, nay, a people belonging to a State, within the very jurisdiction of Monstrous doctrine! If they have, depend upon it, they will soon become the Abettors and Allies of another class of people among us of worse condition, and much fewer rights, and therefore, better entitled to their pity than the Indians, whenever they choose to become insurgents. The cases are precisely parallel; they are both within our jurisdiction and territory, and subject to our laws alone, and no other government under Heaven, has a right to interfere with them, but by the law of the longest and strongest arm.-Suppose Georgia had never entered into the Union, who would have controled these Indians? whose territory would it have been which they now occupy? Suppose any circumstance should unfortunately occur, which may Heaven avert, to dissolve this Union, (for how much a wronged and insulted people will bear, is a point of dangerous experiment and still more doubtful experience) who would then manage their affairs and the soil they are now permitted to enjoy ? These questions may be answered in a manner not even offensive to the Socinianism of Mr. Adams, with all his retiring modesty in political wrangles. Then between these two plain and evident aspects of the case, where has Georgia lost this undoubted right, and where has the Union acquired it. Land and jurisdiction are always conveyed by deed, by written agreement. I repeat, produce the instrument, and Georgia will submit ; she will never deny her hand nor seal; she has no interest to gratify, at the expense of integrity, she has no ambition to serve at the sacrifice of principle, and she has no resentment to appease at the cost of humanity. On the score of justice to the Indians, and her treatment of them and their affairs, it is a State ? entirely a matter of our own concern, in which no other government has a right, nor should it be permitted to interfere; and about which, neither their tender consciences should be touched, nor their more sensitive moralities alarmed. But this much may be safely affirmed, that whenever justice, humanity, equity, or honesty is concerned, they are as safe in the hands of Georgia as in those of the general government, and that whatever may be their superior confidence in the power of the latter to protect them, Mr. Adams has offered the proof, they cannot be in the care of worse sincerity. (No. 6.) "Make the best of this new government-prove that it is the offspring of the greatest human wisdom, the work of any thing short of inspiration, still I say you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty, since, instead of securing your rights, it is more than probable you will, if you adopt it, lose them forever. Make but one wrong step on this occasion, and your republic is gone."-Patrick Henry on the Federal Constitution. THERE is nothing which offers so much alarm to the friends of Federal power as a free discussion of state rights. Instead of meeting the question with open and honest argument, they choose to rely upon the heated prejudice of the community, provoked by every means short of fair and candid reasoning. Does any one dare to question a Federal measure? he is at once denounced as a traitor. Does any one fearlessly assert the right of a state ? he is a disorganizer. Is it attempted to be shewn, either by the voice of the Press, or the privilege of rightful debate, that the general government is trenching upon the power of the states ? behold! it is an attempt to dissolve the Union, and to involve the nation in all the horrors of civil war. Now, such conduct is not only illiberal and unjust, but it is wicked and tyrannical-wicked because it is infamously false. and tyrannical because falsehood never fails to oppress. Why does the Constitution declare that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the Press? What advantage is this inestimable privilege, the one, without which, I boldly aver, no free government under Heaven, can exist, if public opinion is trained to close its ears and its reason against all investigation of Federal powers? What is the difference between King George and King Union? If nothing, in this free county, can be said against the latter, what right have we to reproach the subjects of the former with the want of freedom? What is the difference between monarchy, where the mouth is muzzled by the force of law, and a democracy, where the tongue is gagged by the tyranny of opinion? Who would not as soon suffer under the whim and folly of a despot, as the odium and fury of an excited mob? But why should the people of this day have less right to think and speak about the Federal Government than those who lived at the time of its formation? Was Patrick Henry ever called a traitor ? and who said more against it than he? Were Richard Henry Lee, Samuel Adams, and many others of the warmest patriots of that day, considered disorganizers ? and yet, who have said, or can say more than these against the folly of the states in granting away powers, whose effects they can never control, and whose limits the Union alone will prescribe? Is there such a thing as political limitation to privilege? and does time impose silence upon right? It is high time that this doctrine should be known and well understood. Abuses have often been consecrated by prescription; but to have the liberty of thought and speech gradually worn out by the mere effect of forbearance, is an acquisition in the science of government, reserved alone for the free institutions of America. Never, since the foundation of the American Union, has there been more serious discontent among the states, and more real cause of complaint against the general government, than at the present time. Smothered as the fact is, and cowering as is public opinion, they are all, more or less, concerned at its increasing extravagance-its unnecessary and wasteful expenditures-its hordes of devouring officers, formed and fed for political purposes-but more especially, its gradual, and by no means doubtful, interference in the private affairs of the states. Away from this general cause of jealousy, look at the deep anxiety continually felt and as constantly expressed by the South, in reference to her slave property, which has so stirred the pious grief of the government, and so wrung the tender feelings of that part of the Union who first brought them into the country, that not a year passes over, in which this delicate interest does not receive some fresh attack. Descending to local grievances, have Georgia and Alabama no right to complain, but particularly the former ? Can she have any affection for a government that loses no opportunity to sport with her rights and trifle with her feelings; and more, can she desire a connection with states that are not even satisfied with looking upon her insults with coldblooded indifference, but must mock at her injuries and laugh to scorn her very complaints ? Was this understood to be a quality necessary to the confederation, and carried into the work at the time of its creation, to constitute one of its amiable and corrective virtues, that whenever a sister state even imagined herself wronged, the rest were to frown down her murmurs, or silence them by the mortifying degradation of sneers and reproach? If so, away with such a connection: such unkind regards and heartless affections should sunder much sofer ties and separate stronger interests.-Does Kentucky not complain, and has she no right to do so? It is impossible to conceive of more formidable trials, than those imposed upon, and suffered by that state, on account of her attachment to the Union. Through the oppressions of the United States' Bank, and the still more relentless rigor of the Federal Court, she has been reduced almost to a state of anarchy. It is impossible to describe the distresses of her people, a people brave, generous and intelligent, whose deserts had merited far other and different treatment, and must forever place her oppressors in the wrong. Has Tennessee and Missouri received that just respect for their feelings and interests, which they had a right to claim and expect from a government, professedly founded upon the mutual wants and reasonable wishes of the states, and solely intended for their convenience and happiness, as opposed to the ambitious and selfish views of rulers? What greater mortification can a whole people experience, than to have officers placed over them, who are not only not their choice, but against whom and whose services they have remonstrated in terms, though earnest, yet with becoming respect? Will any one deny, that the most essential principles of our free institutions, contended for by the Declaration of Independence, fought for in the battles of the Revolution, and acquired by the successful issue of that struggle, consist in being governed by laws founded upon our own consent, and served by officers dependent upon our own choice? How far has Mr. Adams regarded these most cardinal doctrines of republican and representative government? Though he entered into his trust with so much political coquetry, played off, in pre tended passion, for the people's wishes, and was oppressed by so much bashful coyness, yet it seems, once seated in his post, his distressing modesty forsakes him, and even a moderate portion of that very people, whose opinions he so much affected to regard, could not be gratified, either in the appointment or removal of an officer; though the one enjoyed the full confidence of the community where his services were sought, and the other had outraged every principle of justice and decency in the office he had long abused and disgraced. A Post Master of her choice was denied to Tennessee, against the voice of Nashville, where he was to serve, and the still louder solicitation of her representatives in Congress. In like manner has the State of Missouri been treated in the appointment of an Indian Agent Notwithstanding that State has suffered much as a frontier State, and many of her good citizens, added to their worth and services, have learned the character of the Savage by the best of knowledge, fatal experience, and therefore better qualified to manage his affairs, yet none were found worthy of the notice of the general government, and a young man nas been sent out, from one of the departments of state, to fill that office, not so much to consult the interest and prosperity of the State, as to nurse and advance the schemes and success of a party.* What other motive has induced Adams to Since writing the above, the President has issued an order to certain purchasers of public lands, in Missouri, who had bought at a public sale, paid down their money, and taken possession of the property, to return all the evidences of their title to said lands and receive back their money, on the ground that since the sale it has been discovered that there are some lead or other mines upon the lands. The Missouri pa pers speak of this transaction in a language much stronger than ever Georgia did about her grievances; and yet we hear no complaint of treason, disunion, &c. They say we will venture the assertion, that an act so arbitrary and palpably iniquitous, has never been attempted by the most tyrannical governments, upon peaceable and unoffending citizens. History affords no example; and it has been left for the administration of President Adams to attempt to drive the farmers from their home, to convert them from independent and prosperous agriculturists, to a dependent tenantry, subject to the capricious will of some petty informer, dignified with the title of Agent. We do not propose to illustrate a self-evident truth; nor are we willing to predict the fatal consequences which must inevitably follow the attempt on the part of the general government, to execute the tyrant's will, or to carry into effect a mandate so shamefully unjust, and "ineffably stupid." The persons, whose names are enumerated in the list, having full faith in the justice of the general government, purchased their lands, paid their money, and have an absolute title, of which they cannot be divested but by a dissolution of the power whence the title was derived, or by lawless force. The dissolution of the government we do not apprehend, and if force should come, it may, lawfully, and we verily believe, will be resisted by force. Let no one startle at this, because it is the point to which the measure must come. The pur chasers say they never will surrender peaceably. But confiding in the justness of their |