Seneca Removal Texts [a machine-readable transcription]

Introduction By Elizabeth J. Clevenger

To understand the viewpoints presented here, a look at the Seneca situation in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is necessary. After the Revolutionary War, both New York and Massachusetts claimed the Iroquois lands in New York. In 1786, New York was given jurisdiction over the land, but Massachusetts was granted the pre-emptive right to purchase the land should the Iroquois decide to sell. This right was sold three times over the next few years, during which tracts of land were purchased from the Senecas. The people ended up on several small reservations in western New York. The Senecas soon became demoralized, their social structures decayed, and traditional rituals became less vital due to reservation life.

On these reservations, the Senecas, like other tribes, received appeals from the Christian missionaries to allow the establishment of mission stations on Seneca land. With the missions came schools designed for the "civilizing" of the Senecas. Although these missionary schools were around as early as 1811, they did not become a strong influence in the Seneca land until the 1820s.

By this time the Senecas were split into two factions known as the Christian and Pagan parties. The Christian party welcomed the missionaries and their efforts by adopting the lifestyles and institutions of the white people. The Pagans rejected this missionary influence and many of them began following the Seneca prophet Handsome Lake. He helped revitalize Seneca society by providing the basis for the Longhouse religion, which is still an important part of modern-day Seneca life.

In 1810 the Ogden Land Company bought the pre-emptive right to purchase the Seneca lands from New York state; under this perogative, the company purchased large Seneca tracts on the Genesee River and on the Buffalo Creek, Tonawanda and Cattaraugus Reservations in 1823 and 1826. Not satisfied with these acquisitions, the Ogden Land Company pressed the Senecas to sell more of their land. The Indian removal policy of the Andrew Jackson administration added to this pressure. It is important to note that it had been the policies of presidential administrations since the time of Thomas Jefferson to remove Indians from their lands and to resettle them further west; it was under Andrew Jackson that the federal government began forcefully to carry out such policy.

The Senecas were successful in resisting such pressures until 1838, when corruption, intimidation and bribery changed everything. About half of the Senecas were induced to sign a treaty agreeing to sell their remaining lands and emigrate to Kansas. While a portion of the chiefs was in favor of the treaty, the majority was against it. The treaty became an issue of public debate when the Society of Friends and others undertook the task of having it revoked. The Quaker missionaries and their supporters felt that the Senecas had been defrauded.

The public debate that began in 1838 because of the manner in which the chiefs had signed the treaty lasted for more than a decade. A result of this debate brought a number of young intellectuals to the forefront of Seneca affairs. Works produced by these young men, especially from Nathaniel Thayer Strong and Maris Bryant Pierce, not only contributed to the debate, but were used by non-Indians on both sides of the issue. Arguments by Strong and Pierce are presented here.

Careful reading of the reasoning employed by these men demonstrates the similarities of conditions, pressures, and arguments that the Senecas faced were experienced by many other tribes as well in the first half of the nineteenth century. Issues of great importance then such as sovereignty, treaty rights, and questions of ownership of land and natural resources are, of course, still being debated today.

While the context of the debate presented here is removal of the Senecas from their lands, the displacement in the 1830s was by no means the only such upheaval faced by the people. Earlier treaties had led to earlier removals and, as late as xxxxxx, Senecas were forcibly removed from their land to make room for the Kinzua dam project.

APPEAL TO THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY ON THE CONDITION AND PROSPECTS OF THE NEW-YORK INDIANS

IN ANSWER TO A BOOK, ENTITLED
THE CASE OF THE NEW-YORK INDIANS,
AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS
OF THE
SOCIETY OF FRIENDS
BY
NATHANIEL F. STRONG,
A CHIEF OF THE SENECA TRIBE.
NEW-YORK:
E. B. CLAYTON, PRINTER AND STATIONER,
NO. 6 TONTINE BUILDINGS, WALL-STREET
M DCCC XLI

Being a Chief of the Seneca Tribe of Indians, and lately arrived in this city, my attention has been called to a volume composed and widely circulated by the Society of Friends, under the title of "The Case of the Seneca Indians, in the state of New York," the avowed design of which is to defeat the treaty lately concluded between the United States and the New York Indians, and after mature consideration by the president and the senate of the United States, constitutionally ratified.[1] The charges contained in this book, the proofs in support of them, and also the proofs in opposition to them, having all been deliberately investigated and passed on by the appropriate tribunals of your country, our people, after years of suspense and anxiety, considered the question of emigration as settled, and they fondly hoped that their rights under the treaty, being now secure and inviolable, they might commence the preparations necessary for their removal, and with the kind wishes and encouragement of their white brethren, be permitted to enter on the new path which a kind new Providence had opened from their escape from bondage, degradation and misery, with the cheering hope of enjoying, in the asylum provided for them by your government, the blessings of freedom and independence. But alas! as at the outset, so in the progress of our journey, we are met by enemies, powerful in numbers and discipline, but more dangerous in artifice and cunning; disguising their attacks under the false banner of friendship and good will, and seeking to withdraw from us the support even of those who are in reality our friends. Thus we see simultaneous movements in different parts of the country, all organized under the same banner, and all urged on by the same influence. These are but the sequels of continued attempts for two years past to control, through the agency of public opinion and prejudice, the constitutional action on the treaty of the president and senate; and although (now binding both on you and us,) through popular entertainment and excitement to prevent its execution. I will not stop to discuss the propriety of these proceedings, nor their consistency with those principles of peace and order professed by the Society of Friends; but in regard to their last publication, I must be permitted to say, that its gross abuse, garbled statements, and repeated misrepresentations, are in my poor judgment as incompatible with the law of Christian charity, as with the rules of candour and fair discussion: nor can I in adequate terms express my surprise, that on an appeal like this, to an intelligent community upon a question involving the dearest interests of an unfortunate and suffering race of beings, coming from a body of Christian men professing to be the steady friends of that race, and the faithful advocates of their cause, no reasoning should be employed to enlighten the public mind on the merits and effects of the treaty as an instrument to them of good or evil; and that its beneficent provisions in their favour, should be noticed only to condemn and censure them, as too liberal and costly on the part of the government.

In the following remarks, I propose, on behalf of my countrymen, to notice the prominent objections put forth in this volume to the consummation of the treaty, and more seriously, to call your serious and dispassionate attention to the point on which I feel persuaded that, as Christians and philanthropists, you will be most disposed to listen to me--our actual condition, and the bearing of the treaty on our future welfare and happiness.

The subject of emigration is not new to the New York Indians. The advancing settlements of the whites, more than thirty years since admonished them of the necessity of that measure, and long before the existence of what is called the "Ogden Company,"[2] led them, as the result of their own calm deliberations, to resolve on securing a seat among their red brethren of the west. Being encouraged in these views by the then president, their attention was first directed to the acquisition of a tract on the White River of Indiana, but the tract being included in a treaty soon afterwards made with the Indian occupants by the government, that attempt of course failed. Subsequently, and as early as 1821, it was removed under the like encouragement, and a purchase was then made from the Menominee and Winnebago tribes, by the Six Nations, the St. Regis, Stockbridge, and Munsee Tribes, (composing all the Indians in this state,) of a tract on the Fox River, emptying into Green Bay; which purchase was confirmed by the government, and was in the following year greatly enlarged.[3] This acquisition soon proved to be so important, that the Menominees, under the influence of the white inhabitants of the territory of which it then formed a part, were induced to deny the validity of the bargain--disputes and bad feeling followed, and before these could be allayed the United States purchased from the Menominees the most valuable part of this tract. The New York tribes remonstrated against this purchase, and the senate after investigating their complaints, in the year 1832 ratified the Menominee treaty, on condition that a tract of 500,000 acres should be set apart for he use of the New York tribes, to be held under the same title by which they held their lands in this state. A portion of the Oneidas and the whole of the Stockbridge and Brothertown Indians removed to, and now reside on that tract--but the arrangement was not satisfactory to others of the New York tribes, who have been since much divided as to the course best for them to pursue, the greater portion of the Christian party among the Seneca tribe and most of the educated and respected chiefs, being decidedly in favour of emigration.

Allow me here to digress for a moment, to show how little you can rely on the facts stated in the volume under consideration. In page 8 you will find the following passage: "A purchase of the Green Bay Lands in 1832 had been made by the government for the future residence of the New York Indians. To the treaty for these lands, made with the Menominees of Wisconsin, the Senecas were not a party; nor did they desire to be." This statement is incorrect in all its parts. The government made no purchase of lands at Green Bay for the future residence of New York Indians in 1832, or at any other time. The purchase in that year was made for the benefit of the United States themselves, and a portion of it (as just mentioned) was given up to the New-York Indians on the ground of a prior claim under their previous purchase of 1821, from the Menominees and the Winnebagos. The Seneca tribe, as one of the six nations, was a party to the last mentioned purchase and paid its full proportion of the purchase money.

For many years past, the condition of the Indians generally and especially that of the feeble remnants of the once powerful nations residing within the old states of the Union, has excited the sympathy of the benevolent, and called forth the talents of the learned, in devising plans by which to rescue them from impending extinction. The subject has by successive presidents been repeatedly urged upon the attention of congress, until at length a well considered system of policy adopted by the national legislature, having for its object the ultimate civilization of the whole body of Indians within the United States. This system embraces all that seems to be necessary to its final success. In a mild and healthful climate, an extensive territory composed of land easy of cultivation, and particularly adapted to the raising of corn, cattle and horses, has been set apart for the exclusive and permanent occupation of the Indians. Sufficient land is to be granted to them in fee, by patent, subject to no pre-emptive right, and by such a tenure as to enable the owners to hold and enjoy in severalty--to transmit to their posterity, and to sell and dispose of among themselves, their respective estates at their own pleasure. Ample protection is guarantied to them in their new home, and the government is pledged to furnish them in the means of elementary education--to provide for their instruction in agriculture and the mechanical trades, and to confer on them the privileges and powers of self government. These benign provisions, together with a just equivalent for the relinquishment of the claims of the New York tribes on the lands at Green Bay, form the basis of the treaty which the Society of Friends, during its negotiation and ever since its conclusion, have been seeking to defeat by every means which wealth and combination, talents and sophistry can furnish.

The circumstances that led to this treaty being grossly misrepresented in the publication under review, it may be proper, briefly, to advert to them.

Within the last twelve years most of the intelligent chiefs of the Seneca tribe have been again awakened to the great and increasing evils of our condition. We first opened a correspondence with the government of the United States, imploring its aid and protection in resisting the encroachments of the unprincipled white men who were overrunning and corrupting us. We were told in answer that it was not in the power of the government to extend to us the protection required, whilst remaining in the state of NewYork, and were advised to remove to the territory provided for us beyond the Mississippi.

In 1832 an agent of the government proposed to the chiefs in general council to send a delegation to examine that territory, and select a portion of it for our future homes. The proposition was well received, but was not then accepted. The Senecas cautiously determined first to send a delegation of three chiefs to Washington, headed by Captain Pollard, the father and pride of our tribe. The delegation proceeded to Washington, had an interview with the president, and became satisfied of his humane intentions. They asked an appropriation to defray the expenses of a delegation to explore Indian territory, which was made by Congress in 1834. A delegation of six chiefs, led by James Stevenson and Seneca White went on the territory, and returning in the spring of 1835 made a unanimous report in favor of the new country.[4] Soon afterwards, some individuals among us became dissatisfied with the report, and we resolved on an application for a second appropriation to defray expenses of another exploring party, and this was also made. A second delegation headed by Little Johnson and White Seneca, visited the country in 1837--returned the same year, and by a large majority reported in its favour.[5] It now became important to act promptly in order to secure the particular tract that we deemed most desirable, and was accordingly signified to the government that the New York tribes were ready to treat with them. A general council was called in the fall of 1837--and here occasion is again taken for another attack on the pre-emptive owners.--The paragraph last quoted from the case, is followed by this. "The Green Bay scheme, however artfully planned, turned out a failure. Years rolled away without its consummation. At length, in the year 1837, under the management of the agents of that (the Ogden) company, as it is generally understood the United States government was induced to appoint a commissioner with the ostensible object of purchasing from the Indians of New York, the aforesaid Green Bay lands. The real object, however, was to obtain the means and money and influence of the government, to assist the said land speculators, in their efforts to obtain the more valuable lands of the Indians, lying in the State of New York"!

The manifest object of this and other similar misrepresentations is to show that in every movement looking to the removal of the New York Indians they have been passive, and to draw from each a new pretext for further abuse and invective against the pre-emptive owners. Thus a public treaty, growing out of a series of preliminary preparations between the immediate parties to it, is referred to the management of a third party, and the executive department of the government of the United States is held up to its citizens as so far forgetful of its own dignity and independence, as under the guise of an "ostensible" object to lend its high powers to a set of land speculators, for a purpose at once base and fraudulent.

It was, both on considerations of propriety and necessity, incumbent on the war department to notify the pre-emptive owners of the intended treaty, and it is to be presumed that this was done; but I am certain that they had no immediate agency in bringing about the council, nor in the selection of the commissioners appointed to hold it.

At this council there was a general attendance of the chiefs. General Gillet of this state, late one of its representatives in congress, represented the United States and opposed the council by a speech explaining the views of the government. Dr. Trowbridge, a most respectable citizen and late mayor of the city of Buffalo, (the superintendent of Massachusetts,) followed in a short address, stating that he was sent there by the governor of that state to see that justice was done to the Indians.

After the question of the removal and the sale of the Seneca lands had been debated for several weeks, the commissioner gave notice that on a certain day he would submit to the council the draft of the treaty, which was presented accordingly with the draft of the conveyance for the Seneca lands; both were read, article by article, to the council and faithfully interpreted in the presence of several persons acquainted with the Indian language; and I here state, of my own knowledge, that both were regularly signed, in general council, by a majority of the Seneca chiefs according to the usage of the Six Nations, each chief signing in his own proper person, except two or three were prevented by sickness from attending and who signed by attorney, as was known to all attending chiefs.

The council was closed by short speeches from the commissioner and superintendent, in which they considered the treaty as a concluded compact, and no dissent was uttered by a single chief on either side.

Up to this period, there was little interference by white men in the deliberations of the council, which were conducted in the usual manner; but when the amended treaty came back, the scene was changed. The opposition had been organized. No particular amendment proposed by the senate was objected to, because as is well known to the authors of the "case" the provisions of the original treaty in reference to the Seneca tribe were left substantially unchanged. The object was to defeat the whole treaty. For this purpose the council was overrun by white men--meetings were called and speeches made in opposition to the treaty. The Senecas were exhorted not to sell the lands of their fathers--were told that the government would never redeem their pledges to them--and if they removed they would be destroyed by the wild Indians of the West. In short every argument, which could be addressed to the fears, the passions and the prejudices of an ignorant and suspicious people were made use of. This was done by a combination composed of 1st, the dram-sellers--2d, the lumberers--3rd, the lessees of mill seats--4th, the holders of hydraulic privileges near Buffalo--5th, the holders of licences to live on Indian lands--6th, the missionaries--and 7th, the Society of Friends.

As to the first five of these various classes of Indian advisers and the motives which actuated them, it is unnecessary to speak. The ground of opposition assigned by the missionaries (except those of Baptist denomination, who abstained from any interference in the matter,) was, that the treaty made no provision for refunding the money expended by the Board of Missions in making their different establishments on our lands; whilst on the part of the Quakers, it was insisted, as is still done, that the New York Indians possessed in their present positions, all requisite advantages and needed no new system of policy for their improvement. Their soft speech and strong professions of disinterested friendship, blended with insidious suggestions considering the sincerity and good faith of the government--the validity if its title to the tract of country appropriated for the new homes of the Indians--the insalubrity of that country and the fearful dangers to which we should be there exposed, could not fail to produce their intended effect on the more timid of our people.

The seeds of distrust and suspicion, discord and strife, thus plentifully sown, soon yielded an abundant harvest. The anti-emigration party, encouraged by the support of their new allies, assumed a bolder attitude. Violence usurped the place of reason. Before the amended treaty had been submitted to the Indian parties the council house, provided at the public expense for their accommodation, was burnt down, and this flagrant insult to the president and gross violation of the laws, is now noticed in the "case" (p.#11) as one of the "strong marks of disapprobation on the part of the Indians," without one expression of regret of animadiversion. It was indeed a "strong mark of disapprobation," but one little harmonizing with that flattering picture of the present state of our people to be found in the same document (p.#20) where their march of improvement in science and morals, as well as in their physical condition, is represented to be "without a parallel in the history of our species"!

In consequence of this outrage, it became necessary to erect a new council house; and whatever may be your new indignation, you cannot be more surprised than I have been, to read in the "case" (p.#11) an allegation that the object of the commissioner in this necessary proceeding, was to "give the land speculators an opportunity to perfect their scheme of bribery and corruption"!!

In accordance with such a beginning, our once peaceful council ground was soom converted into an arena for the display of the worst passions of our nature. An organized system of intimidation was employed to deter our weaker brethren from signifying their assent to the amended treaty. Some of them were driven by threats of death to the woods and if, as is alleged in the "case," runners were employed to bring them back to the council house, it was because they were deterred by fear from appearing there, and our friends were therefore obliged to follow them to their retreats and rally them to the independent exercise of their rights.

In confirmation of these statements, I present to you the following extracts from the part of the official report of the U.S. Commissioner. Of the 25th of October, 1838, which relates to the Senecas. (Senate document, No.#7)

"Experience having taught me the difficulties resulting from the operations of whites attendant upon any negotiation with this tribe, it was with much reluctance that I made up my mind to undertake the duty of submitting to them the treaty as amended by the senate. But my experience had left me much to learn. It would extend this report to an unreasonable length to give you full account of all the obstacles which presented themselves during the negotiation of the late council. I shall give only a portion from which you can form some idea about the whole. I met this tribe on the 17th of August, in a council house which I had caused to be erected on the reservation, and as very many were absent, at their request I adjourned until the 20th. On returning to the council ground I found my council house had been destroyed by fire, the undoubted work of an incendiary. I soon caused a new one to be erected and I proceeded with the business which I had in charge and fully and fairly explained the treaty and amendments. That I did so, I refer to you a letter from M.[aris]B.[ryant] Pierce, now an opponent to emigration, which is on file in your office. At the first meeting I saw there were very many white men present whose actions and conversations indicated to me that they had purposes of their own to subserve. The Indians as well as white men, all concur to the opinion that the nation must become extinct before many years, unless they emigrate to the West. It seems to be the general expectation that they must ere long remove and all admit that it is best to do so. Still the nation is divided on the question of emigration. There is a large and highly respectable and intelligent portion who are the unwavering friends of emigration, whilst another considerable portion appears to be inflexible opponents. Several of this portion admit that the apprehension at the loss of political power in the tribe, controls their action. There is a third class that appear to not have sufficient independence of mind and character to be described as belonging to and acting with either party; and while the current of their feeling seems to be with the emigration party, they are often restrained from action by the threats and compulsion of the opposite party. This class very naturally received the special attention of those who are really opposed to the treaty, as well as those who had objects of their own in view in pretending to be opposed, or in assuming to have great power and influence in the tribe."

Again--

"John Tall Chief, whose power I witnessed, informed me and the superintendent when he gave the power, that his life was in danger, and he dare not sign in council or be seen by the opposition at my room, that he was in favor of the treaty and amendments, and that I must let him sign by power of attorney. He further stated that he must sign whatever the opposition desired him to, that he dare not refuse, that it was all false to say that threats were not used to prevent chiefs from signing; he and others were threatened. I fully believe this account, and have not one particle of doubt that if left free to act, a very large majority of the nation would freely and voluntarily sign the treaty and assent. If white men had kept away, I believe that this would have been done soon after opening the council."

But as it suits the Society of Friends, and does not interfere with their notions of propriety, to vilify the character and impeach the fidelity of this public functionary, I turn to the testimony of General Dearborn the superintendent of Massachusetts, who was sent from Boston to attend the second council and who appears so to have discharged the duties of his office as to have escaped the censure of the Friends; of his official report to Governor Everett, (Senate document, #9) the following is an extract.

"Intimidation has been extensively used by the leaders and their partisans in the opposition, for the purpose of defeating the wishes of those who are desirious of removing to the West. The commissioner was informed by the chief of the Tuscaroras, that threats had been sent to them from the Tonawanda Reservation to deter then from ratifying the treaty."

With this brief outline of the means employed by the white advisers of the opposition party to prevent the Seneca Indians from assenting to the amended treaty, I proceed to examine the complaints of the Friends in respect to he number of chiefs who assented to it and the mode in which their assents were obtained.

The whole number of chiefs is variously stated in the affidavits presented to the senate by the opponents of the treaty--that of Big Kettle, the late great leader of the anti-emigration party, declaring it to be 50--(Senate document, No. 5)--others stating it more--others less. To the contradictory affidavits on this subject were all submitted to the senate, but not adverted to in the "case," nor is it deemed convenient to allude in it, to the ignorance to the part of the chiefs of the number of those to whom is committed to the government of the nation; a degree of ignorance which furnishes a singular illustration of the rapid improvement and general intelligence of the Seneca tribe alleged by their kind eulogists.

It seems now to be admitted ("case" p.#12) that there were 81 acknowledged chiefs, and that of these, (p. 16) 42 signed the treaty. It is true that in the paragraph which precedes the last of these admissions--the titles of three of the 42, viz: John Hutchinson, Charles Greybeard, and Charles F. Pierce to the office of chiefs, are denied; but their titles were fully established, and no proof is offered to disprove them, nor are they questioned even by the opposition chiefs. Israel Jameson, their present and most prominent leader, since charged with the distribution of moneys appropriated by the Seneca nation for the exclusive use of the regular chiefs, having paid to these very individuals, in that character, their full proportions. The money passed through my hands and I vouch for the truth of this statement.

I am reluctant by further details, to add to the unavoidable length of this address, and shall therefore refer, on this point of numbers, to one other document only--the president's message to the senate of 21 January. 1839, stating as an uncontested fact, that 42 out of 81 chiefs had assented to the amended treaty. The message is short, and I have here transcribed it.

"To the senate of the United States--I transmit a treaty negotiated with the New York Indians, which was submitted to your body in June last and amended. The amendments leave, in pursuance with the requirements of the senate, been submitted to each of the tribes submitted in council, for their free and voluntary assent or dissent thereto. In respect to all the tribes except the Senecas, the result of this application has been entirely satisfactory. It will be seen by the accompanying papers, that of this tribe, the most important of those concerned, the assent of only forty-two out of eighty-one chiefs has been obtained. I deem it advisable, under these circumstances, to submit the treaty in its modified form, to the senate for advice in regard to the sufficiency of the Senecas to the amendments proposed.

M. VAN BUREN."

It is obvious from this language that the president whilst satisfied that a numerical majority of the chiefs had signed the amended treaty, was still desirous, in a case which had produced so much excitement, to obtain an expression of the opinion of the senate in regard to the sufficiency of an assent depending on a single voice. That circumstance however was not deemed material, and by a resolution of the senate passed 2nd March 1839, the matter was again referred to the president for the exercise of the powers confirmed on him by the original resolution of the 11 June proceeding.

With a view to further information and, as is understood, in compliance with the wishes of the Society of Friends, the secretary of war visited the Senecas in August 1839, and held with them a council.[6] It was an open one and numerously attended by the Indians and their respected friends and partisans, among others, as the case informs us, by three committees of as many distinct branches of the Quaker Society.--The secretary in his address to the council, that "he was sent by the president to confer with them--ascertain their objections to the treaty and listen to everything they had to say on the subject." Talks were delivered by a chief of each party, but these consisted of little more than mutual crimination and tended to throw no new light on the subject. All parties were patiently heard and the council, after sitting two days, was adjourned. The Friends now complain that the secretary lost sight of the object of his mission in not again laying before the council the amended treaty, for its assent or dissent. What would have been the secretary's opinion as to the expediency of such a proceeding, I do not know, but it is somewhat strange that these ever vigilant committees, if assured that a majority of chiefs were indeed opposed to the treaty, did not propose or suggest such a test of relative numbers.

Between the adjournment of this last council and the meeting of congress, new affidavits were procured and further delay asked by the Friends' promulgation of the treaty. The request was granted; additional documents were submitted to the senate by another message on the 13th January, 1840, which message is quoted (p.#10) to prove the president's understanding that the senate resolution of the 11th June, 1838, required the assents to be given in open council. Now whatever may then have been the individual views of the president on that point, it is very clear that the resolution of the senate contained no such requisition. It provided that the amended treaty be submitted and fully and fairly explained by a commissioner of the United States to each of the tribes separately assembled in open council, and that it should be freely and voluntarily assented to; but it no where directs that it should be assented to, in open council. In fact it is distinctly stated in the commissioner's first report, that the signatures of some of the chiefs to the original treaty were given out of the council, and that no chief objected to it as irregular. That report was printed--was before the senate when they ratified the original treaty, and by that act, this form of proceeding was virtually recognized and approved.

The circumstances referred to in the speech of Senator Wright, that on the passing of this resolution, an amendment was proposed, requiring in terms that the assents should be given in open council, and its rejection, sets at rest all question as to the intention of the senate in this resolution.

Again it is alleged (p.#14) that the commissioner took lodgings at a private hotel--that runners were hired to bring in the chiefs--spirituous liquors employed to intoxicate them--false representations to deceive them--threats to intimidate them--and vain hopes to allure them.

As to such of these vague charges as have not been already noticed, I shall merely ask attention to the final reports of the commissioner and superintendent.

On the 30th October, 1838, the following instructions were communicated by the department to the commissioner: (Senate document, #5)

"War Department--Office Indian Affairs,

October 30th, 1838.

Sir,

Your report and the treaty with the New-York Indians assented to as amended in the senate of the United States, have been submitted to the Secretary of War. He is of opinion that the consent of a majority of all Seneca chiefs must be obtained, but as you have heretofore met the requirements of the senate by full explanations to them in council, you may proceed to the Seneca Reservation and there obtain the assent of such Indians as have not heretofore given it.

You are accordingly authorized and requested, at your earliest convenience, to proceed to the Seneca Reservation in New-York and carry out the above views. Your service among these people qualifies you fully for the discharge of this duty, and gives assurance of its fair, honest and capable performance.

Very respectfully, &c.

T. Hartley Crawford.

Hon. R.H. Gillet

Now at Washington."

The commissioner, in the official report of his proceedings, under these instructions dated 11th January, 1839, (Senate document, #8) thus expresses himself:

"You have heretofore received a full report of all that transpired prior to your instructions of the 30th October last. On the receipt of those instructions I repaired to Buffalo, New-York, for the purpose of carrying them into effect. On my arrival there I was joined by General H.A.S. Dearborn, the superintendent appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts, who continued with me until the close of my visit there. He was present and witnessed every signature to the assent, except on which was taken while he was confined to his room by indisposition. Soon after my arrival at Buffalo I directed the United States sub-agent resident there, to give public notice to the Seneca chiefs that I was present and authorized to receive the signatures of such of their chiefs as desired to give them, and that the superintendent from Massachusetts was also present to discharge the duties assigned him by the authorities of his state."

Again, after stating the number of signatures, he states--

"To these forty-one names may be added that of James Shongo, who signed the assent attached to the printed copy of the treaty now in your possession making all forty-two names, being a majority of three--without the name of James Shongo there is a majority of one.

"In every instance where a signature was received, either General Dearborn or I distinctly inquired of the person offering to sign whether he fully understood the subject and whether he freely and voluntarily signed the assent. In each case a distinct affirmative answer was given."

General Dearborn in his report to Governor Everett dated 2nd January 1839, (Senate document, #10) says,[7]

"A list of names of the chiefs who have given their assent is annexed, marked D. They all signed in my presence in person or by attorney, except John Snow who affixed his name on the Buffalo Creek Reservation and I being at the time confined to my bed by sickness, was unable to attend; but it was done in the presence of the commissioner, the Indian agent, James Stevenson, one of the oldest and most respectable chiefs belonging to the christian party and Moses Stevenson, a son of the above named chief.

"The assent of John Buck and Sky Carrier was given by powers of attorney copies which are annexed and marked E., F., and G., and the reasons therein stated why they did not appear in person.

"I invariably asked each of the chiefs, in the presence of all the persons present, whether they were perfectly satisfied with the treaty and the contract for the sale of their right of possession to the lands on which they resided and willingly and freely come forward to sign the treaty, and they all answered the affirmative." On this branch of the case and also on that relating to the manner of receiving the assents, I quote the following remarks from the speech of a very distinguished senator:

"Without discussing the question whether it was the intention of the senate that the assents should be given in council or whether the language of its resolution required that construction, all must admit that but one object was to be accomplished, viz: the 'free and voluntary assent' of each separate tribe or band to the amended treaty. Now if the senate pointed out one particular place or manner for expressing those assents, and the Indians chose another place or manner for making the same expression, will it be contended that the treaty should fail rather than the forms required by the senate should not be compiled with, whilst the substance of their requisition has been met by the 'free and voluntary assent' of a majority of chiefs." And the same senator in another place adds that although "hitherto he had argued the question of the execution of this treaty upon the admission that the assent of a majority of all Seneca chiefs of every grade, was necessary to its validity, this was an admission which he did not make except for the sake of the argument, because it was a position in the soundness of which he did not believe. So far as his acquaintance extended it was a new principle connected with the making of Indian treaties by this or the state governments; and he believed also that it was new to the laws and customs of the Indians themselves."

I now pass to the consideration of the remaining charge, impeaching the validity of the assents to the amended treaty--viz: the employment of bribery to obtain them.

I would remark preliminarily that this charge refers to transactions connected with the negotiation of, and all prior to, the original treaty--that the charge and all the documents in support of it were spread before the senate--and that this body, by a unanimous vote, ratified the treaty as amended, and authorized the president to proclaim it whenever he should be satisfied that, as amended, it has been assented to by the Indian parties. Assent was the only act remaining to be complied with in order to give full effect to the amended treaty, all other objections and among them the charge of bribery, being finally disposed of by the concurring voice of a body which white men and Indians have been accustomed to regard as the most august and dignified of your nation--and which the Friends in their letter to Mr.Sivier describe as "the highest tribunal on earth, whether considered in relation to its moral standing or to the intellectual power concentrated in its body."

Let me ask what is the meaning of the term bribery as applied to the Indians? If a right to personal gratuities be the privilege of chiefs according to the general and well understood usage of Indian communities, then the acceptance of them, being consistent with the official fidelity, involves no violation of duty, and the payment of them is not bribery. Now, according to the unbroken custom which has prevailed among the Senecas since the first sale of their extensive possessions in this state, the chiefs have demanded and received personal allowances. This custom was acted on the at the treaty of 1797, between Robert Morris and that tribe, held by the late distinguished Colonel Jeremiah Wadsworth as commissioner of the United States, and by a highly respectable superintendent of Massachusetts--annuities for life were then granted to all the principle chiefs of that day and secured by the purchase of public government stocks. Corn-planter, Farmer's Brother, Red Jacket and many others were of the number, and the first of these great men no less than two hundred and fifty dollars per annum was granted for his life that of his wife and those of his eight children, several of whom are still in the enjoyment of it. At the treaty of 1826, the same usage prevailed. Red Jacket, who opposed the treaty and could claim no allowance, was persuaded, as the opposition chiefs now are, to proceed to Washington and on this same charge to contest the validity of the treaty. Then, as now, the usages of our people referred to, and there was no interference on the part of the government. At the council held by the secretary in August 1839, the fact of personal allowances to chiefs was referred to by the orator of the opposition party and stigmatized by the epithet of bribery; on which a leading chief on the other side, rose in his place and in the face of the assembled tribes, avowed and justified the practice as one founded on ancient and well-understood usage; and after expressing his surprise that such a complaint should come from such a quarter, pointed with scorn to several chiefs on the opposition benches who were then in the receipt of personal annuities under the treaty of 1826. This usage is not peculiar to any one tribe: it is common, as I understand, to all, and (as is universally understood) the government of the United States in their Indian negotiations are compelled to conform to it. Nor is the usage of modern origin. At the earlier periods of the settlement of this country, presents, as they were often called, were freely distributed among the chiefs. At this day, and especially among tribes whose constant intercourse with white men has taught them that money is the surest means of purchasing both luxuries and comforts--when the increased value of their lands enhances their official importance and busy white advisers are ready to stimulate their cupidity, it is not strange that the chiefs should be disposed to make the most of their official perquisites. The difference in practice between the pre-emptive owners of the present time, and those of the time of Penn[8] and other colonists is, that what passed under the name presents is now termed bribery : that the chiefs were content then to receive blankets and cloths, gay calicoes and glittering baubles and trinkets, whereas now they demand more substantial allowances in money. In principle there is no difference either as to the giver or receivers of personal gratuities.

With us the chiefs act for the nation in the sale of their land, and if the nation are satisfied with the price, there is no complaint on account of any further benefits that the chiefs can secure for themselves.

I am thus brought to inquire whether or not we have been defrauded in the sale of our lands. In page 2 of the book our authors say that our lands are estimated to be worth from two to three millions of dollars, adding in their accustomed tone of abuse, that this was a "temptation too great to be resisted by the consideration that justice, mercy, truth and fairness must all be trampled under foot before the prize could be obtained!" This envenomed arrow shot from the bow of the meek and gentle Quaker, is leveled at a set of gentlemen whose reputation cannot be affected by my praise or censure--as little can it be affected, in the state of New York, by such foul aspersions; nor where they are unknown, can the use of such a weapon fail to suggest to every white man acquainted with the ordinary proprieties of society, that a cause requiring for its support effusions of passion and malevolence must needs be a weak one. As to the estimate, I might say that I know enough of land in the neighborhood of our reservations to justify me in declaring that it is grossly exaggerated; but the question, as concerns our people, relates not to the value of the land as a subject of sale among white men, but to the value of possessory title which we have sold to the pre-emptive owners. Now it is quite certain in addition to what the treaty secures to us from the United States, we are to receive from the pre-emptive owners on this sale of less than 115,000 acres, more than double the amount paid to our nation by Robert Morris upon a sale to him of more than four million of acres! and if I am rightly informed, vastly more than Penn paid to the Pennsylvania Indians for their title to the whole of that fine territory! and I am informed also that the late sales of the Holland Land Company[9] of their large tracts in the Genesee Country were made (as to the unimproved lands) at prices little, if at all, exceeding that which we are to receive, although their sales embraced both the Indian and the pre-emptive titles.

As to the general character of the whole bargain, hear what General Dearborn says in his report to Governor Everett.--(Senate document, #9)

"Not an objection or complaint has been made by a single Indian during the whole process of the council, as to the price obtained for the right of possession, and I have not seen an individual, other than the persons above named, who does not think the offer of the government, a most generous and favourable one for the Indians.

"The same liberal terms which have been offered, to these Indians, if extended to any county in New-England, would nearly depopulate it in six months."

The opinions of many other intelligent white men to the same effect might be mentioned, but it would be a superfluous tax on your patience, and I shall on this point therefore, refer only to those of the Quakers themselves, as expressed in their memorial to your house of representatives. The object of this memorial is to induce the house to withhold any appropriation for carrying the treaty into effect, on the ground that although by the constitution of the United States the treaty-making power is vested in the president and senate, yet as another part of the same constitution requires the concurrence of both houses of congress in drawing money from the treasury, it thus enables the house to control and nullify treaties.--Applying this new doctrine to present the treaty, the memorial proceeds (p.#50) as follows: "There is one feature in the character of this negotiation with the New York Indians, which we think ought to claim the particular attention of your body as the guardians of the public treasure. By that treaty, four hundred thousand dollars of the public money, and one million eight hundred and twenty-four thousand acres of the public lands are to be given to the New York Indians, as an inducement to relinquish their possessions in the state of New York, for the benefit of the Ogden land company. To your memorialists it appears that under this treaty the government gives away a vast amount of property without any equivalent! It may well be asked what advantage can accrue to the public from the removal of the New York Indians? As regards to the people of the United States, under whose authority the treaty is said to be made, and from whose resources the means to carry it into effect are to be drawn, it may safely be answered, none! In a national point of view, it is a matter of perfect indifference whether the New York Indians remove or do not remove! Why then should our representatives appropriate such a vast amount of money and property to an object in which the community has no interest?" You will recollect that the complaint lately noticed was, that the New York Indians obtained too little for relinquishing their possessions in this state, and you perceive that the complaint now is, that we obtained too much, and that to swell the balance against us, the Green Bay tract containing 435,000 acres, relinquished by the treaty to the United States, (constituting no inconsiderable set-off against their concessions to the Indians,) is entirely omitted in the account!

But I pass over that omission, and call your attention to this memorial, as being a deliberate and recorded avowal of the opinions and feelings of the congregated "committees of the four yearly meetings of Genesee, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, in concern of those meetings for the welfare of the natives of our country." Consider these opinions and feelings.--In the exercise of a liberal but tardy act of mercy and justice, the representatives of a rich and powerful nation have been pleased to make a liberal provision to carry out a great and humane system of policy by which to rescue our perishing race from moral and physical ruin--our removal from the corrupting influences of associations with the white population by whom we are surrounded, being an essential part of that system. In their memorial to congress, we find these delegated advocates of the Indian cause censuring the munificence of these provisions--coldly casting up their amount, weighing in a miser's scale the result of their sordid calculations against our temporal and eternal welfare, and seeking in an appeal to the guardians of the public purse, to win their co-operation by an assertion that "in a national point of view, it is a matter of perfect indifference whether the New York Indians remove or do not remove," and that this "is an object in which the community have no interest"!!! If such be your views on this momentous subject--if your minds are made up to oppose any plans for our salvation, not founded on the dogmas of the Society of Friends, then indeed it is in vain that I address myself to your understandings or your sympathies.

In reviewing a work whose object seems rather to inflame the passions than to call into action the powers of the understanding--to excite prejudice rather than to elicit truth, it is not easy to distinguish between passages too plausible to be entirely overlooked, and others too absurd to need the least notice.

The statements of the "case" respecting the treaties of guaranty between the general government and the New York Indians, and the notable "census" taken under the authority of the delegates of the three yearly meetings of Friends, belong to one or the other of these classes.

As to the first--there is no Indian of any pretension to information, who does not understand, that whilst the general government are pledged, as is that of the state, to protect the Indian tribes from lawless violence, neither the general or the state governments can enlarge their rights to property in the land they occupy, nor diminish the rights of the pre-emptive owners. These guaranties therefore, in the relation to the validity of the late treaty, amount to nothing.

As to the last--what does this pretended "census" amount to? The Quakers send emissaries, upon their own representations of the dangers and privations incident to a proposed emigration to the distant regions of the west, to collect the suffrages of men, women and children on that measure--of men too ignorant to appreciate its advantages, and of women and children equally ignorant, but more easily alarmed by well told tales of horror and hardship; and this species of farce, devised and got up by the "delegates of three yearly meetings," is dignified by the name of a "census."

The parade of affidavits procured by similar means from people more than "14/13ths" of whom are wholly unacquainted with the nature and solemnities of an oath, would seem to me to deserve no greater attention than the "census," except as evincing the extraordinary means resorted to by a religious society professedly opposed in principle to this form of appeal to the Supreme Being, and generally most uncompromising in maintaining their scruples.

I now turn in the further examination of this angry and most uncandid appeal of the Society of Friends, to the contemplation of the present condition and prospects of the New York Indians, and to a calm consideration to a means by which, under the gracious providence of the common Father of all, we, the most hapless branch of the human family, can be raised to the rank that you, his more favoured children, have so long enjoyed, and made to participate in those rich blessings which have been so bountifully bestowed on you.

The ground has been broken in the book I have been reviewing, but the authors have done no more than to betray their entire ignorance of the subject in all its essential principles.

This is an inquiry worthy, not only of the profound attention of the philanthropist, but demanding an exercise of the highest faculties of the christian; for so far as a sound and operative faith in the great truths of the gospel, may be requisite to bring the heathen within the pale of salvation, this inquiry has reference not only to our temporal, but our eternal destiny.

These considerations whilst stimulating my feeble exertions, will I hope secure for me your dispassionate attention.

In discussing the theory of civilization we are met at the threshold, by the fact, that every attempt which has hitherto been made, whether by legislatures or religionists, to produce a radical and enduring change in manners, habits and pursuits of Indian communities, has proved utterly abortive.

This fact, whilst shewing the inherent difficulties of the problem, points to the propriety of applying for its solution to the master spirits of the age, and of ceasing to rely on the crude systems of conceited visionaries and heated fanatics, who, content with the use of palliatives, never look to the source of the disease. Such master spirits have at length approached the subject, and guided by their lights and the information I have been able to collect in the course of my education and subsequent associations with some of the better classes of white society, I am fully persuaded, as I think I must be every intelligent man who dismissing preconceived opinions will devote the powers of his mind to the subject, that the true cause of the failure of past efforts to improve the conditions of Indians, is the disabilities under which they labor in respect to those rights and privileges of person and property, which are the common inheritance of white men.

The aborigines of this continent, from their first intercourse with the nations of Europe, have been the victims of that most unjust principle of colonization upon which the government of each nation first discovering any particular portion of his vast country, assumed over it an unqualified dominion, both as to soil and inhabitants. Upon this principle, the extensive regions claim to have been discovered by the British subjects were parceled out into colonies and granted to them or to individuals, in fee simple--a title carrying with it the power of alienation to all other subjects, and leaving to the Indian occupants, a mere right of possession which the holders of the government title (hence called the pre-emptive owners) were alone authorized to purchase. Such is the title under which the provinces and colonies forming the older states of the union were settled, and such the title under which William Penn came from England to Pennsylvania, as proprietary governor, to reap the benefits of his grant of that whole colony from Charles II. I find from his biography that this distinguished man, whilst in England and before his celebrated treaty with the native Indian occupants, sold portions of his vast territory to his fellow subjects of the British king, and that they accompanied him on his voyage to America, where measures were promptly taken to extinguish the Indian right. Neither Penn or his followers, were stigmatized by the Quakers of that day, as unprincipled "land speculators," nor was it then asserted as is done in the fifth page of the "case," that the pre-emptive title, "vests no right" in the holders of it until the "Indians are disposed to sell," and gives no power over Indian lands "more than that which any citizen of the United States has over the land owned by his neighbor." If this be so, then a very large share of the abuse and opprobrium now lavished on the Ogden company, might have been bestowed on Penn and those who purchased under him, and would have been equally merited by each.

The rights of Great Britain and her colonies which passed by revolution to the states of this union, have since been asserted and exercised by them, in the fullest extent. We Indians thus hold our lands by a title comparatively worthless, and as to personal rights, are placed under restrictions equally severe and humiliating. We are not shut out by all political privileges, and in the country of our birth, are regarded as aliens, being not only deprived of the control of our own lands but incapacitated from acquiring and holding any other, even by purchase from white men! Thus oppressed and degraded, we find ourselves surrounded by white settlements, where a comparison between the condition and privileges of the two populations, would alone be sufficient to check aspirings and subdue the energies of every intelligent member of our community, even were he not compelled further to witness the demoralizing effects of this proximity to the more ignorant and more numerous portion of our people. These, constantly associating with the corresponding classes are always ready to contract with individual Indians for the cultivation of their cleared lands on shares, and to purchase from them a vague license to cut and remove the valuable timber still to be found in our forests; and although cheated and over-reached in all these transactions, the poor Indian (after a fruitful harvest) is enabled to draw from them the means of a scanty subsistence, with such small supplies of money and credit as suffice to gratify his propensity to idleness and his thirst for ardent spirits, but when, as often happens, the corn crop fails, he is thrown a mendicant on the bounty of his white neighbours for the necessaries of life.

Among our young women the baneful effects of the intermixture of the two populations, are still more striking in the general prevalence of that foul disease incident to the indiscriminate intercourse which they maintain with the youths of the neighbouring towns and cities, a scourge which, in the eloquent and touching language of one of the senators in discussing the merits of the treaty, "unknown to the natives until the white man was known--is sweeping over this small remnant of the once proud Seneca nation, sowing the seeds of a slow and miserable and lingering death around the germs of life."

There are many moral, industrious and intelligent men among the New York tribes, but their general condition is much as I have described, one of abject poverty, ignorance and degradation. We are referred in one of the Quaker memorials (p.# 29 of "case") to the condition of the people of Great Britain at the time of the Roman invasion. Bear with me whilst I quote and briefly comment on the whole of this paragraph, which appears to me to involve some fundamental principles of great importance to my countrymen.

(P.#29) "Under former administrations it was a favourable policy of the government to promote the civilization of the Indians, and large sums were appropriated for that purpose. But many of our fellow citizens now entertain the sentiment, and we have no doubt sincerely, that the Indian is an untameable savage, made for the wilderness and only capable of subsisting in a state of nature. We think the sentiment is erroneous--that circumstances only make the difference between them and the white men. Our ancestors in the island of Great Britain when the polished Romans invaded their territory, were as savage as the natives of our own country at the planting of the first colony in Virginia; they painted their bodies and clothed themselves in skins. Centuries rolled away; the example of a civilized state with all its advantages was before them, and yet they remained nearly as barbarous as when first visited by a Caesar. Six hundred years after the invasion, they were far less improved in the arts of civilized life, than are our Indians after the lapse of one fourth part of that time. In the Seneca nation, the march in the improvement in science and morals as well as in their physical condition, is perhaps without a parallel in the history of our species. It is true, much is yet to be accomplished--but the lights of experience shine on our path--the faculties of intercourse are astonishingly multiplied--and nothing, we think, is wanting to the consummation of our wishes for the complete civilization of the New York Indians, but a faithful application of the means which a benevolent Providence has put into our hands or placed within our reach."

I am no antiquarian, and shall not question the historical accuracy of the facts here assumed, but let it be admitted, for the sake of the argument, that the inhabitants of Great Britain "were for 600 years far less improved in the arts of civilized life, than are our Indians after the lapse of one fourth part of that time"--what is the practical inference to be deduced from this fact?

In our "march of improvement in science and morals" 150 years have brought to us our present condition: whether, as viewed by the Society of Friends, it be one of hope and encouragement, or, as viewed by others and ourselves, one of utter despair--whether our march now, be onward or retrograde, all will agree that it ought to be onward, and that "much is yet to be accomplished." What then, are the means to be employed for carrying us in on our journey to that point which the Britons and their descendants in this country now occupy, and can they be successfully applied to us, under the circumstances which belong to and are inseparable from, our present position? Opening our eyes to the "lights of experience" which "shine on our path," we shall find that more, much more, than "multiplying the faculties of intercourse" is needed for the desired consummation.

The rights of property are the very basis of the political institutions of Great Britain, and of all the freedom and all the advancement in the arts, which that country now enjoys. In reviewing her history it will be seen, that precisely as the rights of property were secured and respected, in the very same ratio, did the civilization of the nation increase.

When Henry the 7th permitted his nobles to alienate their lands, he said to have added greatly to the respectability of the lower orders by enabling them to become the purchasers of estates. A gradual approximation of the different classes of society followed, whilst the division of land among many proprietors produced the wholesome competition of small interests which, in a commercial and agricultural country, is essential to the general weal.

In tracing the subsequent history of a nation who up to that period, (nearly 1500 years after the birth of Christ and the invasion of Great Britain by the Romans) remained comparatively barbarous, we find that the capacity to acquire and hold individual property, and the power to transfer it, at pleasure, and transmit it by will, were essential elements of civilization. These, in fact, are the grand cement of society--without them no man ever achieved any really useful enterprise, or ever steadfastly devoted the active powers of mind or body to the accomplishment of any great and praiseworthy object. Without them, no nation has become, or ever can become, truly civilized.

Now if the condition of our people be such as I have represented--without the capacity to take or hold lands (otherwise than by mere occupation) or to dispose of them--shut out from all civil and political rights--a distinct and degraded and despised class of society, it is impossible to apply to us, whilst thus circumstanced, those means of civilization which were so successfully employed among your ancestors in Great Britain. But what, let me ask, are those other means referred to in the paragraph just quoted "which a benevolent Providence has put into your hands or placed within your reach," by the "faithful application" of which, we are to become civilized? Your legislatures may, within another 150 years, admit us into your political family, but they cannot give us an effectual title to land which already belongs to others, nor can they shelter us from the influences which are taking from us the few virtues of the manly savage, and giving us in exchange the lowest vices of the most profligate of your white men, and spreading among our people the seeds of a loathsome disease, are polluting the very fountains of life.

To tell us then what white men have been, and what, under the operation of means which are denied to us, they now are, is a mockery of our distress, and an insult to your understandings.

If proofs were required as to the practical effects of the disabilities under which we labor, they are to be found in the last 50 years of our history with which many of you must be familiar. Within this period, you have seen that the wild wilderness of the Genesee Country, and the still wider wilderness of the West, have been made "to blossom as the rose." The most needy of your people, planting themselves everywhere among the forests, have been able by their own exertions, to provide a comfortable subsistence for their families, establish schools, erect churches, build up villages and cities and acquire wealth and consideration, whilst the New-York Indians, with the "example of a civilized state with all its advantages" continually before them--possessed of better lands, enjoying the benefit of missionaries and teachers and all the aids of active benevolence, have in the great work of civilization, achieved nothing to justify a hope that, whilst deprived of the incentives and rewards which animate the freeman, they can never be more successful.

The general views here expressed, seem to me to find strong support in those of the senators friendly to the treaty, whose speeches have been given to the public. For this reason, and for the purpose also of making this address in some degree instrumental in rescuing from unmerited opprobrium, the characters of the gentlemen whom I have every reason to esteem, and who have been most wantonly calumniated throughout the publication under consideration, and at the same time of confirming the general accuracy of my own statements on several points in which they conflict with those to be found in that publication, I take leave to present the following extracts, necessarily omitting from their great length, those elaborate and conclusive arguments upon the question agitated in the senate not less than in the "case," as to the validity of the Indian assents to the amended treaty.

Governor Lumpkin[10]--"When I consider the moral degradation of these Indians and reflect that they cannot escape from the destruction attendant on their continuance in their present abodes, I cannot estimate the importance of immortal beings by dollars and ce