Page images
PDF
EPUB

his own deed invalid whatever cause may be assigned for its invalidity, even though that party be the Legislature of a State. A grant amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert that right. A grant from a State is as much protected by the operation of the provision of the Constitution as a grant from one individual to another; and the State is as much inhibited from impairing its own contracts, or a contract to which it is a party, as it is from impairing the obligation of contracts between individuals.

Such was the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. No matter that the voice and consent of Georgia had been obtained through misrepresentation on the part of her General Assembly. No matter that bribery and corruption had extorted a shameful sacrifice of most valuable property from the accidental representatives of the people No matter, said the United States Judiciary to the innocent people, whether the grant was made rightfully or wrongfully, "you are "not to be the judge of that question; you are estopped from questioning anything but the existence "of your patent." No wonder the people of Georgia were indignant at such a decision, so unexpected, so novel, so antagonistic to the theory of State sovereignty in which they had been educated.

66

The opponents of the decision contended that the inhibitory clause of the Federal Constitution simply applied to cases of contract between man and man, and not to cases in which a sovereign State directly or indirectly was a party. It appeared to them monstrous that a State should be bound by the unauthorized acts of her ageuts, simply because a citizen had acquired a

vested right thereby. Could it not be left safely with the State to make compensation for injury to innocent parties in such case? Before the States would ratify the Constitution they insisted upon an amendment forbidding the judicial power of the United States to any suit in law or equity by the citizen of another State or of a foreign country against any of the States. If the State could not be compelled to abide by a contract made with a citizen of another State or a foreigner, how could she be compelled by the United States to abide by a contract with one of her own citizens? The people of the State were filled with indignation against the alleged encroachment by the. General Government against their rights.

The Federal party which had adhered to the administration of WASHINGTON, from this day began to fall away more rapidly than ever. The Republican party of Georgia grew with wonderful rapidity, and soon there appeared upon the stage such men as JOHN FORSYTH, WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, THOMAS W. COBB, DUNCAN G. CAMPBELL, AUGUSTUS CLAYTON, ELI S. SHORTER, JOHN M. DOOLY, FREEMAN WALKER, JOHN M. BERRIEN, STEPHEN W. HARRIS, and GEO. M. TROUP. Into every political campaign entered the principles of Government involved in the Yazoo transaction. The people were on the side of Georgia, and this splendid array of youthful intellect was on the side of the people. The current all set towards the sovereignty of the State; there was barely a perceptible eddy in the other direction.

CHAPTER V.

Relation of the Union to the Indian Tribes-Relation of the State to the Tribes Within Its Limits-The Georgia Act of Cession—Non-Observance of the Contract on the Part of the United States-The Treaty Making and Commerce Regulating Power-Conflicting Views as to Indian Rights-Practice of the Northern and Eastern States-The New Theory of Equality of Races, &c., &c.

"But the project of ultimately organizing them [the Indian tribes] into States, within the limits of those States which had not ceded or should not cede to the United States the jurisdiction over the Indian territory within their bounds, could not possibly have entered into the contemplation of our Government. Nothing but express authority from the States could have justified such a policy, pursued with such a view."

WILLIAM JOHNSON, Associate Justice Supreme Court U. S.

"The main point involved, was not the rights of the Creeks, but the corner-stone of the legal foundation of the whole Union. It is true that there was no danger that this corner-stone would be broken and shattered on the instant. But the demand of principiis obsta! was again urged upon the Federal Government, and in a more pressing way than ever before."

VON HOLST'S CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, p. 449.

A majority of the States represented in the convention which framed the Constitution, either ceded to the United States the soil and jurisdiction of their western lands, or claimed it to be remaining within themselves. Congress assented as to ceded, and the States as to the unceded territory, their right to the soil absolutely and the dominion in full sovereignty, within their respective limits, subject only to the Indian occupancy, not as foreign States or nations, but as dependent on, and appendant to the State govern

ments.

Before the convention took action, Congress erected a government in the Northwestern territory containing numerous and powerful tribes. It was ordained that the territorial laws should extend over the whole district, and divisions were created for the execution of the civil and commercial law. Although the Indians were, for a long time, and generally, permitted to regulate their internal affairs in their own way, it was not by any inherent right acknowledged by Congress or reserved by treaty, but because Congress did not see proper to exercise its full powers of sovereignty. This complete sovereignty was declared and asserted in all the regulations of Congress, from 1775 to 1788, in the Articles of Confederation, in the Ordinance of 1787, in the Proclamation of 1788, and in the case of the Southwestern Indians in the Treaty of Hopewell in 1785.

In the Act of Cession made by Georgia to the United States in 1802 of all lands claimed by her west of the line designated, one of the conditions was: "that "the United States should, at their own expense, "extinguish for the use of Georgia, as early as the "same can be peaceably obtained, on reasonable terms, "the Indian title to lands within the State of Georgia."

Finding that the Federal Government delayed to carry out their part of the stipulation, and were adopting measures looking to the perpetual occupation of these lands by the Indians, such as the erection of school houses and churches, the parcelling out of farms among them, and their education in the arts of civilized life, the State of Georgia resolved to extend her laws over the entire Indian territory within her borders. She claimed, as has already been seen, a fee simple

title to these Indian lands.

She claimed and exercised

the right to sell these lands to the Yazoo speculators; and the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1810, had decided that she had a right to make the sale, and should not annul it. There could be no higher recognition of her right to sovereignty, over the vast territory covered by the Yazoo Acts, than the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Fletcher vs. Peck.

If Georgia, as was admitted by a majority of the court in that cause, had a fee simple title to the soil, it was a worthless title so long as the Federal Government recognized a right on the part of the Indian tribes to occupy the soil at will. The analogy of an estate in remainder or reversion could not apply, since no time or circumstance was fixed for the reversion to happen. There could not be two concurrent sovereignties. The State repeatedly remonstrated to the President, and called upon the Federal Government to take the necessary steps to fulfil the stipulations as to removal. She complained that while the Indian title to immense tracts of country had been extinguished elsewhere, but little if any effort had been made in that direction within the limits of Georgia. This delay was attributed either to a want of attention on the part of the United States, or to the effect of its new humanitarian policy towards the red man. In one or more of the treaties, titles in fee simple to certain reservations of land were given by the United States to individual Indians. This was complained of by Georgia as a direct infraction of the condition of the cession.

Georgia complained also that the policy of the Government in advancing the cause of civilization among

240220

« PreviousContinue »