FEB. 2, 1832.] Chickasaw Treaty. [H. OF R. cle in the treaty of 1818: he alluded to the fifth article, of the most patriotic kind, as protectors of the rights of by which the commissioners of the United States agreed the United States, but that they had likewise acted from "that there should be paid to Appassantubby, a principal the most benevolent intentions, as guardians of the rights chief of the Chickasaw nation, within sixty days after the of the Indians. The gentleman from Connecticut, in the ratification of this treaty, the sum of five hundred dollars, expansiveness of his philanthropy, had, beside, included as a full compensation for the reservation of two miles the occupants of the four miles square. Indeed, this gensquare, on the north side of the Tennessee river, secured tleman seemed to be overflowing with the milk of human to him and his heirs" by the treaty of 1816. kindness, according to his own professions. Certainly those individuals, unknowing and unknown, as they were to that gentleman, must feel deeply indebted for his unsolicited concern as to their welfare; and dead, indeed, to gratitude must the Indians be, if they did not properly estimate the voluntary exertions of gentlemen in their behalf, when, having made no complaint, stated no inju ries themselves, they yet found champions in that House to represent their grievances, and defend their rights. In the abundance of their philanthropy had these gentlemen risen to plead the cause of the United States and of the Indians, when neither party, as far as it was known, had, in this case, supposed themselves injured. Here it was agreed to give five hundred dollars for two miles square; just one-fourth the quantity of land contained in the reservation in question. Supposing the number of acres contained in the four miles square to be ten thousand, then two thousand dollars would give twenty cents per acre. How much better than this was the sum of five hundred dollars for two miles square; and that of land as to soil and situation far superior; embracing soil valuable for agricultural purposes, lying on the north bank of the Tennessee river, whilst the other had no value, except in the idea that it contained salt springs? The price would be found, on calculation, about, if not precisely, the same. He thought, in the view which he had thus taken of the There was a rule recognised in courts of law, which, two articles of the treaties of 1818 and 1850, no case was by analogy, might properly apply on this occasion. By established authorizing the charge of fraud or unfairness that rule, the gentlemen having themselves put their moon any of the parties concerned. Such a charge had in- tives in issue, they would be fair subjects for consideradeed been rather insinuated than alleged by the gentle- tion. That rule was not known in that House; but he man from Massachusetts. Notwithstanding the plain and had a right to refer to other transactions of the gentleman abundant evidence of fraud which the gentleman seemed from Massachusetts, which he thought analogous in printo perceive on the very face of these transactions, he had ciple to the present. Such he conceived the gentleman's refused to make any direct charge. In his resolution, and conduct to have been with regard to the removal of the in all he had said, he had gone on the ground of assump. Indians. In 1830, that gentleman was opposed to the retion. "Suppose it to be so," "if such be the case," then moval of the Indians to lands on the west of the Mississippi; wrong, gross wrong, has been done either to the Chicka- although, in 1826, he had been willing, and had given his saws or to the United States. These implications involved aid for the removal of the Creek nation to the same quar not only the Second Auditor, but the commissioners who ter. This was the point he wished to establish that were engaged in these negotiations. Who were those the principle which had induced this different conduct, at commissioners? One of them was the late Secretary of different periods, was analogous to that which had actuatWar; the other General John Coffee, a man whom any ed him on the present occasion. He would briefly refer gentleman on that floor might be proud to call his consti- to the character of the acts of 1826 and 1830. tuent. the House. The act He is, said Mr. C., my constituent, and knowing of 1826 was for the purpose of removing the Creek nahim as I do, I am bound to defend him. Who, he would tion, who were willing to go to the west of the Mississippi; ask, was John Coffee? Sir, he is a man without whose aid they were to be removed at the expense of this Governand influence that treaty could not have been brought ment; their warriors were to be furnished with rifle guns, about. Who is the man thus falsely implicated in transac-brass kettles, and blankets; and they were to be supporttions said to be corrupt and disgraceful? He would tell ed one year at the expense of this Government, at the He was a man who had devoted himself to place where they might settle. Now, what were the prothe service of his country-his blood had flowed freely in visions of the act of 1830? It was for the removal of such her cause he had shed it in her behalf in the contest with only as were willing to go; there was no clause in it by the Creeks at Emuckfaw, and he had dared his country's which an Indian could be forced to remove. Those who foe in many other battles. He was the hero of the 23d of voluntarily went were to be transported to the place of December, 1814, in the conflict below New Orleans. He their destination, and supported there one year at the was a man, till now, unassailed by the boldest herald of expense of the United States. vile calumny or petty slander. His public character was He would now notice a remarkable fact. The act of too high, and his moral principles too pure, for their pur- 1830, which had been violently opposed by both these poses. Was the character of such a man as this to be lug gentlemen, and others, besides the above, contained seged into debate, upon a mere unfounded assumption? veral distinct provisions in favor, and for the advantage of Was a name, which had never been sullied before, to be the Indians, which could not be found in the act of 1826. thus blackened? Was such a proceeding worthy of that In the first place, instead of merely permitting the Indians deliberative body? Or, could any purpose which the in- to have a usufructuary interest in the lands on which they troducer of that debate might have to serve, justify such might settle, as had been the immemorial practice, it gave a procedure? If he [Mr. C.] had had no other reason them a patent for title to the lands in fee simple. It morethan his knowledge of the character of General Coffee, to over bound the United States to protect them in the eninduce him to repel the charge of unfairness brought joyment of such lands against every other tribe, person, against the persons concerned in the treaty, that alone or persons, whatsoever; they were not only to be remov would have been sufficient; and if he had had nothing ed, and supported at the expense of this Government, whereon to base his judgment of the unjustness of the according to the provisions of the act of 1826, but they charge but that individual's character, he should not have were to have the lands in fee simple to them and their hesitated in his decision. How far gentlemen were ex- heirs forever, and were to be protected by our arms. cusable for looking into documents, as to matters which There was another provision, not contained in the act of had not come fairly before the House, and thence assum- 1826, to be found in that of 1830. It required the Presiing charges against such individuals as he had alluded to, dent to have the same care over the welfare of the Inhe should not pretend to decide. Both the gentleman dians in their new, as in their former residence; and there from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Connecticut was yet another, by which it was provided that no subhad assured the House that their motives were not only sisting treaty betwixt the United States and the Indians VOL. VIII.-109 H. or R.] that act. Apportionment Bill.--Washington's Centennial Birthday. [FEB. 3, 1832. should be violated, in the execution or by the authority of resolution which involved an insult to the Chief MagisAll these advantages had the act of 1830 over trate and the other branch of the Legislature, and, on their part, a departure from their proper sphere. APPORTIONMENT BILL. On motion of Mr. POLK, the House then proceeded to the orders of the day, and took up the apportionment bill. Mr. MCKENNAN, of Pennsylvania, who had voted yes terday in the affirmative on the question of striking out forty-eight and inserting forty-four, said that he had been appealed to by several gentlemen who had been absent when the vote was taken, and who would have voted on the opposite side, and at their request he moved a reconsideration of the vote of yesterday. Mr. WILLIAMS, adverting to the thinness of the House, (owing probably to Mr. CLAY's speech in the Senate,) moved a call of the House. Mr. WATMOUGH moved to postpone the bill until Monday; but Mr. POLK renewed the motion for a call of the House; which motion prevailed. So the House reconsidered the vote by which it had yesterday determined to strike out 48,000 and insert 44,000 as the ratio of representation. Mr. BOON demanded the previous question; but the House refused to second the call. that of 1826, which was carried almost unanimously. And yet the former was resisted, as contrary to humanity and true policy; as calculated to degrade our country and ruin the Indians; and this by many of the very persons who had supported the act of 1826--the member from Massachusetts [Mr. EVERETT] among them. Mr. C. said he had never heard of these friends of the Indians hunting out treaties as unjust and inhumane, which had been made for cessions of land, and with tribes in other quarters of the country, or complaining of the inadequacy of compensation there made. The Indians of the Southwest were, it would seem, not merely the peculiar, but the sole care of these humane gentlemen. He could call the attention of the House to another transaction analogous to the present Gentlemen would remember certain proceedings which took place in that House about twelve months ago, near the close of the short session preceding the present. About the 14th of February, if he was not mistaken, a member from Massachusetts [Mr. EVERETT] introduced a memorial calling for a repeal of the law of 1830. How The roll was called; absentees called a second time; it happened that a memorial of this character should have the doors closed; excuses received; one hundred and been deferred until the very close of the session, he would eighty members found to be present; and the names of not say; but, on the 14th of February, it was presented, sixteen members left without excuse, and liable to arrest and a motion made to refer it to the Committee on Indian by the Sergeant-at-Arms. But before any further measure Affairs, with special instructions to repeal the law of 1830. was taken, the call was suspended, and the doors opened. The gentleman who introduced the memorial well knew Mr. WATMOUGH's motion for postponement was lost. that the subject, in the preceding session, had undergone The question was then taken on the motion for recona long, thorough, and laborious discussion; and that, after sideration, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 100, a protracted debate in this House for five or six weeks, it nays 94. was passed, and that it was subsequently passed by the Senate, and approved by the Executive. With this knowledge, could it have been supposed--could that House now believe it was supposed-that a law would be passed repealing that of the preceding session? At that time, Monday alone was devoted to the consideration of memorials. On the day of the presentation of the memorial in question, the gentleman who presented it [Mr. EVERETT] Occupied the whole of the day in a speech on the subject, and kindly gave way to motion for adjournment. The next Monday was also principally occupied by him, and he was partly answered by two gentlemen, one of whom was the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, but he had not time to conclude his remarks. No reference was made, and thus the matter ended. Could any other result have been anticipated? By no one, he repeated, who remembered the events of the former session. But if the memorial had failed in that House, it might not fail out of it. An election for members of Congress in New Hampshire was about to take place on the 10th of March following, and, during the ensuing spring and fall, in various other parts of the Union; and though his speech might have no effect on the House, it might have an effect on the good people in those places. He did not say that this was the object which the gentleman from Massachusetts had in view; the rules of the House would not permit him to say so; but he would leave it to gentlemen, having heard these facts, to infer what they pleased from the introduction of so extraordinary a measure at the very close of a short session. He would not occupy the House any longer; he had been called on to Mr. ADAIR thought it would have been better to have pursue the course he had taken, by a sense of duty. He retained the word "General," and inserted before it the was, at this time, for the reasons he had assigned, opposed word "Major," so as to read "Major General George to any call for inquiry. When the treaty in question Washington." He considered this proper, because the should have been referred to the Senate, and ratified by fame of General Washington rested chiefly on his military the Executive, it would then be competent for them to institute any inquiry relating to it which they might think proper; and he would now pledge himself at such time to support any motion for investigation which might be made, whether in reference to the rights of the United States, or the wrongs of the Indians. Mr. C. concluded by expressing a hope that the House would not sustain a Mr. CHILTON ALLAN then moved to recommit the bill to a select committee, with instructions so to amend it that the number of members should not exceed two hundred. On this question, Mr. TAYLOR demanded the yeas and nays; which being taken, stood--yeas 32, nays 161. The House then adjourned. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3. WASHINGTON'S CENTENNIAL BIRTHDAY. Mr. THOMAS, of Louisiana, asked the consideration of the following joint resolution, moved by him some days since: Resolved, That, if the Senate concur herein, a joint committee of the two Houses be raised, for the purpose of inquiring into the expediency of celebrating the centennial birthday of General George Washington. The House having consented to consider the resolution, Mr. TAYLOR suggested that the resolution be further modified, by striking out the words "if the Senate concur herein," which was also accepted by the mover. services, and Mr. M. moved the alteration as an amendment. Mr. ADAMS said that he had two motives for the suggestion he had previously made-the first was, that whatever might be the estimate of General Washington's character, formed by the world at large, his own opinion was, that his services to the country in a civil capacity were quite as important, and as worthy of commemora FEB. 3, 1832.] Chickasaw Treaty. [H. of R. tion, as his military achievements. If, then, the resolu- tives, pursue such course, and use such language, as a tion should be so framed as to have reference only to his sense of propriety and his own judgment should dictate, military services, its effect would be, so far as the resolu- and point out as the most correct, whether it was agreea, tion was concerned, to cut off one-half of his merit--his ble to the honorable member or not. Gentlemen, accordsecond motive was to give the resolution simplicity. The ing to his apprehension, seemed very desirous of bringing simple name, "George Washington," expressed more into this discussion a great mass of extraneous matter. He than if it were accompanied with a whole volume of titles, did not know whether this was done for the purpose of civil or military. drawing the attention of the House from the subject really before it, by involving others less proper for consideration; he only knew that such was the tendency of the ed to consider this call for information as an attack on the Executive; that it was introduced for the purpose of reviving an old and exploded slander. Why so? In the same gratuitous way, it would be quite easy to attribute unworthy motives to the opposition of those gentlemen to the resolution before the House. He [Mr. E.] did not know that this was an attack on the President, or an attack on any one. He had not, indeed, the advantage of knowing so much on the subject alluded to, as those gentlemen. But if this matter had even been a subject of inquiry and Mr. ADAIR made a reply; no part of which could be heard. The SPEAKER, not having heard the gentleman, in-course pursued. In the first place, gentlemen had affectquired whether he withdrew his amendment; to which question he was understood as replying in the affirmative. On the motions of Mr. TAYLOR and Mr. HOGAN, the phraseology of the resolution was amended, so as to read as follows: Resolved, That a joint committee of the two Houses be appointed, for the purpose of making arrangements for the celebration of the centennial birthday of George Washington. In which form it was adopted almost unanimously; and, on motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE, it was referred to a com-discussion, as the gentlemen assert it has been, in the mittee of twenty-four, one member from each State. [The following gentlemen composed the committee on the part of the House of Representatives, viz. Mr. THOMAS, of Louisiana, Mr. ANDERSON, of Maine, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr ADAMS, Mr. BURGES, Mr. HUNTING TON, Mr. HUNT, Mr. CAMBRELENG, Mr. L. CONDICT, Mr. MUHLENBERG, Mr. MILLIGAN, Mr. HOWARD, Mr. McCoy, of Virginia, Mr. HALL, of North Carolina, Mr. DRAYTON, Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, Mr. WICKLIFFE, Mr. BELL, Mr. VANCE, Mr. Boox, Mr. PLUMMER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. CLAT, Mr. ASHLEY.] CHICKASAW TREATY. Mr. EVERETT's resolution on the subject of the Chickasaw treaty again coming up for consideration, newspapers, and had there been refuted and put to rest, it by no means followed that it was not a fit subject of investigation here, and at this time, for he could assure the honorable gentlemen that party newspapers, in party times, was the worse possible authority which could be adduced on this floor. The gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. POLK,] who spoke the other day, had unfortunately left the House in utter ignorance whether he was opposed to the adoption of the resolution or not. He attended minutely to the observations of that gentleman, but had been unable, at last, to ascertain whether he was willing that an inquiry should be instituted, or whether he wished that no further steps should be taken on the subject. For what purpose had that gentleman addressed the House? Had he controMr. EVANS, of Maine, rose, and said he should not be verted any of the facts stated by the gentleman who offerdeterred by any thing which had been said yesterday by ed the resolution? Had the gentleman from Alabama the honorable gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. CLAY,] from done so? He [Mr. E.] thought not. But they had expressing fully, and he hoped clearly, his views of the gone into various explanations of facts which could not be subject under discussion; nor from declaring those opi- denied. Now, what was the object of these explanations? nions which, in his own judgment, the facts that have been submitted to the House authorized. That gentleman had severely tasked his ingenuity, to see how far he could go, keeping within the bounds prescribed by the rules of the House, and without utterly violating the limits of that courtesy which was due from one gentleman to another, in extending his denunciation of those who should vote for the adoption of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. [Mr. CLAY denied that he had denounced any one who might think proper to vote in favor of the resolution; his remarks had been confined to those who had spoken on the subject to the opinions they had expressed, and to the course they had pursued.] Was it to resist inquiry? or was it to send forth these explanations to the world before the inquiry was instituted, to prepare the public mind for the development of these transactions? It had been made a matter of complaint against the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT,] that he had entered into a detail of circumstances connectwith the treaties of 1818 and 1830, and the several leases executed under these treaties. How could he do otherwise? Consider how the resolution had been introducedhow it had been received. The gentleman from Massachusetts had thought it his duty to present this resolution to the House. Did he accompany it with explanations? Did he send the facts connected with that resolution to the world? No. He simply presented it to the House; and Mr. EVANS resumed. He had understood the gentle- when the vote upon its adoption was about to be taken, man from Alabama, in referring to the motives and feel- three gentlemen from Tennessee successively rose from ings which had, in former instances, influenced the votes their seats to oppose it. The gentleman from Massachuof members of that House, (according to the opinion of setts assented that it should be laid on the table till he that gentleman,) as asserting or inferring that similar could obtain such further information as would enable motives must actuate them in voting on the present occa- him to decide whether the matter was worthy of investision; that the operation of a similar feeling was now going gation or called for a further procedure. On a subseon in the House; he had understood this imputation to quent day, he brought forward a modification of his former extend to all who should now vote in favor of this resolu- resolution, so framed as to obviate some of the objections tion. He [Mr. E.] wished to impeach the motives of no which had been urged. Was it not due to himself and to man in that House--he would not do so; and as it seemed that House to give the reason for having so modified it? offensive to gentlemen, that members of that House, in to explain the object he had in view? He did so. He introducing a measure, should declare they were influenc- stated the facts which it was necessary for him to state; ed by no improper motives, he would abstain from pro- facts which, in his [Mr. E.'s] opinion, had not yet been fessing what were his, in rising to make the observations denied, nor satisfactorily explained. Was it complained he was about to offer. He would remark that, at all times, that he did not state other facts? that he did not give those and upon all subjects, he should be governed by such mo- explanations which had since been given? Where could he H. of R.] Chickasaw Treaty. [FEB. 3, 1832. have got them? Nowhere. The reason for the introduc- confirmed by the Senate? And if they were truly exetion of the resolution was that there were circumstances cuting the treaty, were we to be told it was an inchoate requiring explanation; and its sole object was to call forth instrument? He would dwell no longer on these points. such explanation. The very light it sought for was to What was the second explanation which had been given? show, in their true colors, certain transactions, which, en- Was it a denial of any circumstance which had been stated veloped as they were in obscurity, wore an unfavorable and relative to the lease of the reservation in the treaty of suspicious aspect. Gentlemen had attempted to explain 1818? No. The explanation was simply this: That the some of the circumstances of these transactions. He commissioners were, at this time, entirely ignorant of the would examine those explanations. What were they? transactions as to the lease agreed upon between two cit It was said that the treaty, one article of which we wish zens of the United States and the Indians. If he had not to be laid before us, is still inchoate; that it had not yet as- misunderstood, the gentleman had stated that he was ausumed the shape of a perfected instrument, and might, thorized to say the commissioners had no knowledge of on a certain contingency, become void; and that when the matter. This, in itself, was a remarkable fact. What the late Secretary of War, near two years ago, had stated inference could be drawn from it? One only, that the lease that the treaty was concluded and ready for submission, he itself was not properly and lawfully entered into. If such had not used proper language. He [Mr. E.] did not pur- were not the case, if the lease was a legal and fair one, pose, at the present time, to undertake the defence of and consistent with the treaty, why this anxiety that the that individual's pretensions to any great philological at- commissioners should not know of it? For his own part, tainments; he believed that at any time he should feel he thought it not only proper, but necessary, that they himself incompetent for such a task; but, in the plain should have known it. How or where the treaty was statement of a fact, he did not see that there could be made, he did not know; but they had been told by a ger any room for cavil arising from the language of the late tleman [Mr. BELL] that one great obstacle which had been Secretary of War, or any other person. What was the encountered in its negotiation, was this very reservation; fact stated? It was that two treaties had been con- that the Indians had entertained an opinion of its great cluded, and were ready for submission. There was no value, and were unwilling to part with it; and, furdistinction in the language, and probably none in the ther, that the negotiators had refused to allow them this mind of the Secretary, between these treaties. Both reservation, till they agreed it should be leased to citizens were ready, if either was. One was submitted, the other of the United States. And yet it was said these commis. was not, for the consideration of the Senate. The ex- sioners knew nothing of the lease, although it was actually Secretary was undoubtedly correct in the fact; both made on the very day of signing the treaty, and one of were concluded and were ready for the action of the the witnesses to that treaty was a party to it, and deeply other branch of Congress, and ought to have been sub-interested in it. This was all extraordinary enough, but mitted. What was the explanation which had been the gentleman had stated that such was the fact, and he offered as a reason why one of them was not? Because,[Mr. E.] presumed it was so. But, granting the ignorance forsooth, that treaty contained a proviso that in a certain of the commissioners on the subject, did it not look like event the treaty should be null and void! What was this a collision between the lessors and lessees, to take advanproviso? That if no suitable lands should be found for the Chickasaws, west of the Mississippi, then the treaty between that tribe and the United States should fall to the ground. Did such a proviso as that render it unfit to be submitted to the Senate? In his view of the case, proviso or no proviso, it should have been submitted. If ratified, it would have been ratified with the proviso; and if the terms of that proviso were never complied with, the treaty itself could never go into operation. tage of such ignorance? All these things might be capable of explanation; but if, when information was asked, which might explain them, an attempt was made to withhold it, what other inference could be drawn, but that there was something unfair in the transactions, something that would not bear scrutiny? It was said, the gentleman from Massachusetts acted on suspicion; if so, why not furnish that information which might destroy his suspicion? There was another most exBut did the treaty contain nothing else but this proviso? traordinary fact to be noticed, which was, that the lessets Were there no other terms contained in it, as to which had executed a bond, engaging themselves to pay to the the consent of the Senate was necessary? If the treaty Indians 20,000 dollars if the United States should refuse had been submitted, as it should have been, to that body, to ratify the treaty. He wished for some additional light as a branch of the treaty-making power, the terms of the on this subject also. Was it usual, when a treaty was ne proviso, as well as the other terms of the treaty, would gotiated between the United States and another Power, have undergone consideration; and if the treaty had been for third parties, mere by-standers, to step in, and enter ratified, that proviso would have been ratified also. The into heavy bonds for the performance of the stipulations gentleman [Mr. BELL] had likewise undertaken to explain on the part of this Government? He did not know that the meaning of the President, when he told the House such was the fact in the present instance, but he wished to that these treaties were "in the course of execution;" know. It had been so stated, and had not yet been deand told the House that it meant no more than that the nied or explained. The next explanation of the honora Chickasaws were exploring the country west of the Mis- ble member from Tennessee was, that the lands were not sissippi in search of a suitable tract of land for their set- so valuable as was expected, and as they had been repretlement. He [Mr. E.] had thought that, according to the sented. He did not care if they were worth nothing. views of the gentleman to which he had just alluded, if The question at issue had nothing to do with the value such a tract was not found, the treaty was to be a nuility. of the lands. It was as to the manner in which they had Were they then to be told that, whilst these Indians were been acquired by the lessees, and the motives those per looking round to see if this was to be a treaty or no treaty, sons had in being parties to that instrument. To say they the treaty was actually in the course of execution? Was had made a bad bargain, did not prove that they had made there any article in the treaty itself requiring this examin- a fair one. If they had not derived so great advantages as ation? [Mr. POLK nodded an affirmative.] A gentle- they expected, so much the worse for them, though he man opposite said there was. Well, then, if the treaty [Mr. E.] could not sympathize very deeply in their sor contained such an article, and these Chickasaws, in thus row for their disappointment. He had yet to learn that exploring the country, were fulfilling a part of the pro- the justness of motives, or the propriety of actions, devisions of the treaty--were performing an act which grew entirely out of those provisions, were they not, he would ask, carrying into execution a treaty which had not been pended on success. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. CLAY] had referred them to the fifth article of the same treaty, by which a reservation of two miles square was FEB. 3, 1832.] Chickasaw Treaty. [H. of R. sold for five hundred dollars, and had argued that if that to that House than it was to the individuals implicated in was a fair price, then 2,000 dollars was also a fair price those transactions, which, according to the admission of for a tract four miles square. He had but one objection to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL,] himself, had this plan of the gentleman, to make one article the com- a very suspicious appearance. The gentleman from Alapurgator of another. It was possible that article, like- bama [Mr. CLAY] had complained of mutilated facts, and wise, required investigation; for aught they knew, the partial information, and that the whole truth was not becompurgator needed compurgation. It was said that the fore the House; and yet the gentleman was opposed to fourth article of the treaty of 1818 had been misunder- this call, the object of which was to procure the necessastood; that that article gave a discretionary power to the ry information. It was said that no specific complaint-lessors; and that the lease which had been made was a nothing in the nature of an impeachment--had been put suitable and proper lease, upon full and proper consider- forth. How could we pursue such a course, if the requiations; and it had been asked what fact there was to show site knowledge, as to facts, was kept back and denied? a forfeiture on the part of the lessees. He would ex- All they asked was for the means which would either reamine this. If, as contended for, the lease executed under move their suspicions, or enable them to put forth a spethe treaty of 1818 was a proper and substantial lease; and cific complaint. Reference had been made to certain if no fact had occurred whereby it was forfeited, whence transactions in the last and preceding sessions of Conthe necessity for any article whatever, respecting it, in gress, with regard to the passage of the bill for the remo the treaty of 1830? If, of itself, it was a sufficient and val of the Indians, for the purpose of showing an inconvalid title to the land obtained for a fair consideration, sistency in the conduct of those who had been in favor of whence the inducement for the lessees to pay 2,000 the act of 1826, but were opposed to that of 1830. Was dollars twelve years afterwards, under the provisions of a it possible that gentlemen had forgot what were the obnew treaty? Unless their title under this lease needed jections to the latter act? Did they not know that the protection, why take out a new deed, reciting the article circumstances which gave rise to these objections did not of the new treaty, and have it placed on record? Would exist in 1826? The opposition offered was not to the they have acted thus, if they had felt themselves justly removal of such Indians as were willing to go; with this and legally entitled to the lands under the lease of 1818? condition, that they should be left at liberty to exercise Surely not, unless they are governed by motives different their own free will, and that, until they chose to remove, from those which usually influence men in their dealings. they should continue under the protection of the PresiIn the article of the treaty of 1830, for which we call, dent of the United States, who should have been willing it is said that reference is made to the original lease under to appropriate any sum for the purposes of the act. But the treaty of 1818, and a new stipulation is entered into for did not the President, at that time, tell Congress that a perfecting and making valid the title of the lessees, upon new era had arisen as to Indian affairs; that the tribes had payment by them of the sum of 2,000 dollars. That the called on the United States for the fulfilment of its agreemoney was paid-a new lease executed, and the lessees ments with them; that he had told them he had no power have come into possession under it. How was this brought to afford them the protection they asked, and that they about, and where the necessity for it? Gentlemen had must come under the authority of the States? Certainly said, that when this new treaty was about to be negotiat- he did. What, then, was the opposition offered to the ed, the Indians, finding they had not got any thing from act? Did he not offer amendment after amendment, prothe reservation under the former treaty, naturally recur-viding for the fulfilment of treaties existing between this red to their claims on the land. If these claims had been Government and the Indians? And did we not declare made against the United States, it would have been well our entire readiness to pass the bill if such amendments enough, and a matter for the commissioners and the In- were adopted? The act, as far as it went, was well dians to treat about. But who authorized the commissioners enough; and it was only opposed because it did not conto treat with them, on the behalf of these lessees, for their tain the provisions rendered necessary by the new era in interest? If the original lease was valid and substantial, our relations with the Indians. Was this the case in 1826? why did not these lessees rest upon their title, and turn No. They had, at that time, no complaints from the Inthe Indians round to the United States? But no! strange dians of treaties violated and compacts broken. They to say, it seems they were quite willing, on their part, to did not then come to that House with their parchments accede to these terms, and to pay 2,000 dollars to make bearing our signature, and memorials asking the fulfil good a title which gentlemen contend was good already. The next explanation which had been offered to do away with any impression of unfairness, so far as regards the Second Auditor, was, that he had no interest in the lease, and was merely nominally concerned. It did not matter whether it was that individual or any other who was concerned in the transaction. If he permitted his name to be used, and placed on the record, and any thing connected with the transaction was found to be illegal or unjust, or fraudulent, he would be held to that degree of responsibility which the offence might merit. ment of our plighted faith. Nor did the States then extend their jurisdiction over them. They were then under the shield of the constitution. Alas! that shield had been broken! In this view, he thought the conduct of gentlemen in 1826 perfectly consistent with their conduct in 1830. But it had been complained, that a memorial on this subject was introduced at a very late period of the last session, with a view of renewing the discussion on Indian rights or Indian wrongs. Whose fault was it, if any fault existed, that the subject had not been taken up earlier? It was not for the want of petitions, praying (Mr. BELL rose to explain a statement he had made that it might be taken under consideration of the House. on a former day. He understood that, at the time the Day after day, petitions and memorials had been presentlease was signed there, the Second Auditor had no inte- ed, from various parts of the Union, and from the Indians rest in it. On reference to the journals of the commis- themselves, praying and beseeching the action of the House sioners, however, he found that the lease was contracted on the subject. What had been done with them? They by Mr. Currin, for himself, and for Mr. Lewis, as his at- had been sent to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and torney. Finding afterwards that it was not worth the attention of two persons, Mr. Currin had taken the whole into his own hands.] Mr. EVANS resumed. The transactions in question might be perfectly honest and fair, as to all the parties concerned. All he desired was to know if they were so. He thought inquiry into the subject was not more due there they were at the present moment. No notice had been taken of them-no report made. Seeing, then, that there was no prospect or hope that the committee to which the subject had been referred, would act upon it, they had felt themselves called on to institute an inquiry, at the time and in the manner they did. It was said that no hope could have been entertained that any good would result |