visit you, and three Cherokee boys. From your unworthy heathen friend, ISRAEL FOLSOM." To his Excellency James Monroe, Accompanying the foregoing letters, were the calculation of the eclipse of August 2d, 1822, very neatly projected, and the results stated in the usual form, by Elias Boudinot, a Cherokee of seventeen; a translation of the 119th psalm, into the Mah-he-con-nuk language, by John Hicks, of that tribe, which is inserted under the head of Miscellaneous Articles; with a number of very neat and beautiful specimens of Chirography, of the pupils. In this art they are equal to any people on the globe. App. H. h. Rep. p. 39. West of the Rocky Mountains, within the limits of the United States, the number of Indians is estimated, from the best information which can be obtained, at about 150,000. This body of fellow beings, in a state of nature, ignorant of all the blessings of christianity and of civilized life, undoubtedly have strong claims on our benevolent attention. The political affairs of this remote part of our territory are unsettled. They have been before Congress, and left unfinished. It is in contemplation to establish here, in due time a Military Post, a Colony, and a Territorial Government. It is of the first importance that with these, whenever made, there be planted a large and well selected Education Family, similar to that proposed for Council Bluffs,* for the benefit of the soldiery and colonists, as well as of the Indian tribes. Experience, in New-England particularly, has proved the wisdom of making these establishments coetaneously. Together, they form a whole, and may cooperate to great advantage. Each, in the case under consideration, would be imperfect, and unsafe, without both the others. the joint efforts, and influence of the whole, we might reasonably expect the best results. From * See Appendix M. m. App. I. i. Rep. p. 63.—Indian Titles. The following opinion was given by an eminent Lawyer, in a case stated to him relative to the nature of Indian titles to their lands. "The case stated must be examined and considered with reference to certain established principles, the original foundation of which is now no longer open to enquiry. The European settlers of this country, claimed to have a right to appropriate it to themselves, and the mildest and least exceptionable form in which they exercised that right, was to treat the aboriginal inhabitants as entitled to a limited or qualified property, a right to occupy and enjoy under certain modifications, but with no power to convey nor, indeed, to do any other acts of ownership. The right of soil, or the absolute property, and the jurisdiction over it, were in the mean time deemed to belong to the Sovereign, or State under whose authority the discovery and settlement were made, and to the Grantees of such Sovereign or State. The interest in the soil carried with it the right to buy off, or otherwise remove, the incumbrance, which right, as respected the Sovereign or state, was of course full and absolute, but as respected individuals, was subject to such restrictions as might be thought fit to be imposed, either by general legislation, or by terms annexed to the respective grants. "It resulted, necessarily, from this view of the subject, and I presume it may be considered as a general principle adopted and acted upon, if not uniformly, at least very extensively, in the British colonies and possessions in North America, that no title could be derived to Individuals, merely by purchase from the Indians. A title to the soil could not be acquired, because, according to the theory adopted, the soil was not theirs; and a title could not be acquired to the occupation and enjoyment, because these were regarded as personal privileges, or rather privileges of the nation or tribe in possession, and were not permitted to be transferred. "At the revolution, the rights of territory and jurisdiction, which belonged to the foreign Sovereign, and such Sovereign rights as had been granted by him to individuals or bodies, became vested in the States of this Union, within whose limits the territory lay. Individual rights, previously vested, were, on the contrary, respected and preserved; or, (as was perhaps the case in some instances) where they were seemingly blended with certain sovereign powers, or powers, too extensive to be held by individuals, were made the subject of an equitable commutation. Among the rights which thus became vested in the States, was the sovereign authority over the lands inhabited by the Indians within their bounds, and not yet become the subject of individual ownership or claim. It comprehended the right of soil, the jurisdiction, and the exclusive authority to purchase, or otherwise extinguish the qualified property of the Indians. This right was transferable to individuals, in the manner the State might deem best, and when so transferred was commonly called a right of preemption. The transfer or grant in whatever form, was usually accompanied with a condition, either expressed or understood, which required for the validity of the purchase from the Indians, that it should be made under the authority and with the sanction of some person or persons appointed by the State; and as these purchases were made from the tribe, or nation, and not from individuals, they have most commonly been made by treaty. "The right of pre-emption, then, when granted to an individual, was a right to the soil, subject only to the occupation by the Indians, and to become absolute, so as to entitle him to possession, when that should be extinguished. It is clear that such a grant would create a vested interest, in the individual, which could not rightfully be divested or mpaired, without his own consent, or by such acts of legislation as are competent to effect any other vested in terest. "These general views are in some measure applicable to all the questions proposed, and I believe them to be in coincidence with the opinion expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Fletcher v. Peck (6 Cranch 87. 141—2.) "I am of opinion, that (naming an Indian tribe) did not acquire any legal right in the lands purchased by them from the (here naming another Indian tribe,) and of course that no legal title can be acquired by purchase from them. The tribe who sold had no power to sell. The constitution of the state of (— expressly prohibits a sale, and the general principles before adverted to, which no doubt were in the view of those who framed -) the constitution, lead to the same result. Regarding the sales a merely void, as a nullity, producing no legal consequences, it cannot, I think, be considered as working a forfeiture, &c." Vattels' opinion on Indian Titles. Vattels' opinion on this subject, is, that a nation, merely by taking possession of a country, acquires, by this act, a title to "no more than it is able to people or cultivate."-"The law of nations only acknowledges the property and sovereignty of a nation over uninhabited conntries, of which they shall really, and in fact, take possession, in which they shall form settlements, or of which they shall make actual use.” "A nation may lawfully take possession of a part of a vast country, in which are found none but erratic nations, incapable, by the smallness of their numbers, to people the whole.”—“The earth belongs to the human race in general, and was designed to furnish it with subsistance: if each nation had resolved from the beginning, to appropriate to itself a vast country, that the people might live only by hunting, fishing, and wild fruits, our globe would not be sufficient to maintain a tenth part of its present inhabitants. People have not then deviated from the views of nature in confining the Indians within narrow limits. However, we cannot help praising the moderation of the English Puritans, the first settlers in New-England; who, notwithstanding their being furnished with a charter from their sovereign, purchased of the Indians the land they resolved to cultivate.* This laudable example was followed by Mr. William Penn, who planted the colony of Quakers in Pennsylvania."+ Opinion of Hon. J. Q. Adams Esq. on Indian Titles.‡ "There are moralists, who have questioned the right of the Europeans to intrude upon the possessions of the aboriginals in any * History of the English Colonies in North America. + Vattel ch. 18th, p. 160, 161. Oration on the anniversary Festival of the sons of the Pilgrims. Plymouth, Dec. 22, 1802. case, and under any limitations whatsoever. But have they maturely considered the whole subject? The Indian right of possession itself stands, with regard to the greatest part of the country. upon a questionable foundation. Their cultivated fields; their constructed habitations; a space of ample sufficiency for their subsistence, and whatever they had annexed to themselves by personal labor, was undoubtedly by the laws of nature theirs. But what is the right of a huntsman to the forest of a thousand miles over, which he has accidentally ranged in quest of prey? Shall the liberal bounties of Providence to the race of man be monopolized by one of ten thousand for whom they were created? Shall the exuberant bosom of the common mother, amply adequate to the nourishment of millions, be claimed exclusively by a few hundreds of her offspring? Shall the lordly savage not only disdain the virtues and enjoyments of civilization himself, but shall he control the civilization of a world? Shall he forbid the wilderness to blossom like the rose? Shall he forbid the oaks of the forest to fall before the axe of industry, and rise again, transformed into the habitations of ease and elegance? Shall he doom an immense region of the globe to perpetual desolation, and to hear the howlings of the tiger and the wolf, silence forever the voice of human gladness? Shall the fields and the vallies which a beneficent God has framed to teem with the life of innumerable multitudes, be condemned to everlasting barrenness? Shall the mighty rivers poured out by the hands of nature, as channels of communication between numerous nations, roll their waters in sullen silence, and eternal solitude to the deep? Have hundreds of commodious harbors, a thousand leagues of coast, and a boundless ocean been spread in the front of this land, and shall every purpose of utility to which they could apply, be prohibited by the tenant of the woods? No, generous philanthropists! Heaven has not been thus inconsistent in the works of its hands! Heaven has not thus placed at irreconcileable strife, its moral laws with its physical creation! The Pilgrims of Plymouth obtained their right of possession to the territory on which they settled, by titles as fair and unequivocal as any human property can be held. By their voluntary association they recognized their allegiance to the government of Britain; and in process of time received whatever powers and authorities could be conferred upon them by a charter from their sovereign. The spot |