reasonable terms. In relation to sovereignty, nothing is said of or hinted at in the compact; nor was it necessary or even proper, as both the parties to the agreement well knew, that it was a right which already existed in the State in virtue of the declaration of our independence, and of the treaty of 1783, afterwards concluded. These things have been made known to you frankly and after the most friendly manner; and particularly at the making of the treaty with your nation in 1817, when a portion of your people stipulated to remove to the west of the Mississippi; and yet it is alledged, in your communication to this department, that you have 'been unshackled with the laws of individual States, because independent of them.' Georgia cannot, and ought not, to claim the exercise of such power what alternative is then presented? In reply, allow me to call your attention for a moment to the grave character of the course which under a mistaken view of your own rights, you desire this government to adopt. It is no less than an invitation that she shall step forward to arrest the constitutional acts of an indepent State, exercised within her own limits. Should this be done and Georgia persist in the maintenance of her rights and her authority, the consequences might be that the act would prove injurious to us, and, in all probability ruinous to you. The sword might be looked to as the arbiter in such an interference. But this can never be done. The President cannot and will not beguile you with such an expectation. The arms of this country can never be employed to stay any State of this Union from the exercise of those legitimate powers which attach and belong to their sovereign character. An interference to the extent of affording you protection, and the occupancy of your soil, is what is demanded of the justice of this country, and will not be withheld; yet in doing this, the right of permitting The course you have pursued of establishing an independent, substantive government, within the territorial limits of the State of Georgia, adverse to her will and contrary to her consent, has been the immediate cause which has induced her to depart from the forbearance she has so long practised; and in virtue of her authority, as a sovereign, independent State, to extend over your country her legislative enactments, which she and every State embraced in the confederacy, from to you the enjoyment of a sepa1783 to the present time, when their independence was acknowledged and admitted, possessed the power to do, apart from any authority, or opposing interference by the General Government. But suppose, and it is suggested merely for the purpose of awakening your better judgment, that rate Government within the limits of a State, and of denying the exercise of sovereignty to that State within her own limits, cannot be admitted. It is not within the range of powers granted by the States to the General Government, and therefore not within its competency to be exercised. In this view of the circumstances connected with your application, it becomes proper to remark that no remedy can be perceived, except that which frequently heretofore has been submitted for your consideration-a removal beyond the Mississippi, where alone can be assured to you protection and peace. It must be obvious to you, and the President has instructed me to bring it to your candid and serious consideration, that to continue where you are, within the territorial limits of an independent State, can promise you nothing but interruption and disquietude. Beyond the Mississippi your prospects will be different. There you will find no conflicting interests. The United States' power and sovereignty, uncontrolled by the high authority of State jurisdiction, and resting on its own energies, will be able to say to you, in the language of your own nation, the soil shall be yours, while the trees grow or the streams run.' But, situated where you now are, he cannot hold to you such language, or consent to beguile you by inspiring in your bosoms hopes and expectations which cannot be realized. Justice and friendly feelings cherished towards our red brethren of the forest, demand that, in all our intercourse, frankness should be maintained. The President desires me to say, that the feelings entertained by him towards your people, are of the most friendly kind; and that, in the intercourse heretofore, in past times, so frequently had with the Chiefs of your nation, he failed not to warn them of the consequences which would result to them from residing within the limits of sovereign States. He holds to them now no other language than that which he has heretofore employed; and, in doing so, feels convinced that he is pointing out that course which humanity and a just regard for the interest of the Indian will be found to sanction. In the view entertained by him of this important matter, there is but a single alternative- to yield to the operation of those laws which Georgia claims, and has a right to extend throughout her own limits, or to remove, and by associating with your brothers beyond the Mississippi, to become again united as one nation, carrying along with you that protection which, there situated, it will be in the power of the Government to extend. The Indians being thus brought together at a distance from their white brothers, will be relieved from very many of those interruptions which, situated as they are at present, are without remedy. The Government of the United States will then be able to exercise over them a paternal and superintending care, to happier advantage; to stay encroachments, and preserve them in peace and amity with each other : while, with the aid of schools, a hope may be indulged that, ere long, industry and refinement will take the place of those wandering habits now so peculiar to the Indian character, the tendency of which is to impede them in their march to civilization. Respecting the intrusions on JOHN H. EATON. Opinion of the Attorney-general as to the right acquired to the soil under existing Treaties with the Cherokees. the United States, which conclud your lands submitted also for consideration, it is sufficient to remark, ed the war of our revolution, the that of these the Department had powers of government, and the already been advised, and instruc- rights to soil which had previoustions have been forwarded to the ly been in Great Britain, passed Agent of the Cherokees, direct- definitively to those States; that ing him to cause their removal; the United States, or the several and it is earnestly hoped, that, on States, have a clear title to all this matter, all cause for future lands within the boundary lines complaint will cease and the order described in the treaty, subject prove effectual. With great re- only to the Indian right of occuspect, your friend, pancy. Such, it is said, also, is the doctrine which has been held by the various European nations, who acquired territory on this continent, and who have all asserted their right to the soil, by making grants of lands which were yet in the possession of In3dian tribes. Such, I have to remark, will moreover be found to be the spirit of the several compacts entered into with this particular tribe, if these are carefully considered and general expressions are interpreted as they should be, by a reference to principles which had been already settled in previous stipulations with them, or which necessarily grew out of the relations between a civilized community, and the savage tribes which rove within the limits of its jurisdiction and sovereignty. Office of the Attorney-general U. S. Į SIR: The question which you propose, relates to the condition of those lands within the Cherokee hunting grounds, the improvements on which, having been paid for by the United States, the lands themselves have been abandoned by the individual occupants, who have emigrated to the westward. The inquiry renders necessary an examination of those doctrines which relate to the title of this Indian tribe to the land which it occupies, and of our relations to them, as these may have been affected by the treaties or compacts which have been entered into with them. In the very elaborate opinion delivered by chief justice Marshall, in the case of Johnson vs. McIntosh, re-affirming the doctrine asserted in Fletcher and Peck, and speaking of the lands in the occupancy of the Indian tribes, it is declared, that, by the treaty between Great Britain and In the first treaty with this tribe, that concluded at Hopewell, they are manifestly considered as a conquered people, and the terms of that instrument clearly indicate the recognition of the principle adverted to by the Supreme Court, in the case of Johnson and McIntosh, that a conqueror prescribes the limits of the right of conquest; and that the limitations which humanity, fortifying itself by usage, imposes upon civilized nations, cannot be applied and enforced in relation to a savage tribe. The instrument commences by this emphatic declaration: the commissioners plenipotentiary of the United States, &c, &c, give peace to all the Cherokees, and receive them into the favor and protection of the United States of America, on the following conditions. The tribe was no longer in that state, in which, as an independent and unconquered nation, it could stipulate for itself, that there should be peace between the United States and its people; but only in a condition to receive this as a boon resulting from the mere grace of the conqueror. It was a boon which was moreover granted on such conditions as could only have been imposed on a conquered and uncivilized people. They were required to restore all prisoners and property taken by them during the war, and to do homage to the United States, by acknowledging themselves under the protection of this government, and by expressly abjuring all other protection. When they had thus humbled themselves before their conqueror, and it became necessary to assign to them a country, in which they might dwell, this was not done by marking out to them the limits of a domain, which should be appropriated to them in fee, or by any other determinate title, and which, separated from the United States, should be circumscribed by limits which each party should be bound to respect. On the contrary, the terms of the treaty show, that, like the gift of peace, it was an act of mere grace on the part of the United States, by which a base and determinable interest was conceded, in the lands which were assigned to them. The fourth article of this instrument declares, that the boundary allotted to the Cherokees for their hunting grounds between the said Indians and the United States, within the limits of the United States of America, is, and shall be, &c, &c. The territory thus described, was then allotted by the will of the conqueror; it was so allotted as mere hunting grounds, over which the tribe was free to rove in pursuit of their game, without conferring on them any permanent interest in the soil itself, the fee in which remained in the State within whose jurisdictional limits it was; and these hunting grounds were acknowledged to be within the sovereign limits of the United States. Such were the terms which the United States, in the exercise of the rights of conquest, and of those acquired under the treaty of 1783, with Great Britain, imposed upon the Cherokees ; and it was upon these conditions that the tribe agreed to accept, and to retain possession of the lands which were thus assigned or allotted to them. The principle thus decisively settled by the treaty of Hopewell, is fundamental. It constitutes the basis of all subsequent stipulations, and furnishes the key by which they are to be interpreted. When, therefore, in the subsequent treaty of Holston, the United States solemnly guaranty to the Cherokees, the lands not thereby ceded, the stipulation must be understood with reference to the interest, which by the treaty of Hopewell, they had in these lands; which it has been seen was such, and no more, as an allotment of them for hunting grounds, could create. In the treaty afterwards entered into at Tellico, the continuing force and obligation of this treaty is recognised for the second article expressly stipulates, that the treaties subsisting between the contracting parties, are acknowledged to be of full and operating force; together with the construction and usage under their respective articles, and so to continue; and that treaty is declared to be additional to, and to form a part of, the treaties already subsisting between the United States and the Cherokees. A like recognition of the continued force of former treaties, is also found in the second treaty concluded at Tellico, on the 25th October, 1805. Except then as they were modified by the stipulations of succeeding treaties, these earlier compacts continue in force at the present day. We may pass, therefore, to those treaties which relate to the emigration of the Cherokees to the lands west of the Mississippi, which give rise to your inquiry. As early as in the fall of the year 1808, two deputations, the one from the upper, the other from the lower Cherokee towns, presented themselves at Washington, the first to declare to the President their desire to engage in the pursuits of agriculture and civilized life, in the country they then occupied; the second, to make known to him their wish to continue the hunter life. The deputations from the upper towns, requested from him the establishment of o division line between the upper and lower towns, for the purpose, by thus contracting their society within narrow limits, of beginning the establishment of fixed laws and a regular government. Those from the lower towns alleged the scarcity of game where they then lived, and made known their wish to remove beyond the Mississippi river, on some vacant land of the United States. In the early part of the succeeding year, the President replied to these applications, expressing the willingness of the government, as far as could be reasonably asked, to satisfy the wishes of both; assuring to those who should remain, its patronage, aid, and good neighborhood; and giving to those who wished to remove, permission to examine the country on the Arkansas and White rivers, with a promise to exchange it for a just portion of that which they should leave. These transactions are in the same spirit which dictated the treaties to which we have referred. They are the applications of a dependent tribe, to a nation whose protection they invoked, and whose right to regulate their concerns they recognised. They are registered in the compact of 1817, which was entered into to give effect to them. Among other provisions of that instrument, it stipulated for the payment by the United States 'to those emigrants, whose improvements should add real value to their lands, a full valuation for |