OCR Interpretation

Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, May 12, 1830, Image 2

Image and text provided by Rhode Island Digital Newspaper Project

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83021167/1830-05-12/ed-1/seq-2/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

In the Senate of the United States, A
pril 21, 1830, on the bill to provide for an
exchange of lands with the Indians re
siding in any of the Stutes or Territories,
and for their vemoval west of the River
Mr. President: The whole argument
in favor of this bill turns upon the ques
tion, whether the Indian nations within
our territorial boundaries are comémtent
to make treaties with the United States.
For it makes no difference whether the
Indian nation be within the chartered
limits of a State, or out of those limits if
within the limits of the United States.
For if being within a State renders
the Indian nation incompetent to make
a treaty, the being within the United
States makes them equally incompetent,
the reason being the same in both cases
—namely, the being within the jurisdic
tion of another power; and therefore, as
the argument is, subject to that jurisdic
1f these Indian nations are competent
to make treaties, then the proposed law
is unnecessary; as its object may be ef
fected by treaty; and this law is not ne
cessary to aid the Executive in making
this treaty. And if these Indian nations
are competeot to make treaties, than this
Proposefiaw is not only unnecessrry, but
it is unconstitutional; for it is to make a
treaty by the legislature; which can only
be made by the executive and Senate.
The turning queston, of this whole de
date, 1 repeat is, whether the Indian na
tions within our territorial boundaries are
competent to make treaties.
Before I proceed todiscussthis question,
1 have toremark that itis matter of surprise
that this question, should now be made,l
when it is now made for the first time.—
From the time of the discovery of this
new world by the old,down to this time,now
more than three hundred years, the com
petency of an Indian nation, situated
within the jurisdiction of another power,
has never been made a question before:
No jurist, no writer upon public law, has
ever made it a question. But, through
all that long tract of time, treaties upon
treaties,and almost without number, have
been made with them, without a doubt,
in a single instance of their competency
to make them. This is not denied on the
other side; indeed it is admitted that the
doctrine and the practice of all past time,
for century upon century, has been, to
consider these nations, thus situated, as
competent to make treaties. But all this
is treated as if the whole world, from the
beginning down to this time, had been be
nighted upon this subject; as if they had
ignorantly supposed and believed that the
igndian nations, thus situated, were com
petent to make treaties, when intruth they ‘
were not competent to make treaties:
That Great Britain had been in this de
plorable state of ignorance, with all her
statesmen; that our governments, both
state and national, had been in this de
plorable state of ignorance, with all their
statesmen; that the jurists or writers upon
public Jaw, of all the world, had all been
in this deplorable state of ignorance. 1
say so treated; for I do not perceive that
this new opinion is advanced with any
less confidence, or with any more diffi
dence, on account of that mass of author
ity and usage against it. I have further
to remark, that if indeed it be so, that
these Indian nations, thus situated, are
not, and have not been, competent to
make treaties, then all the trcaties made
with them are nullities. 1f so, the con
sequences of that consequence would be
enough, I should think, to make gentle
men- pause a little, and even fear the
success of their own argument; for the
consequences would be such that the
whole body of the rights acquired by In
dian treaties, or held under them, or de
rived from them, would be torn from their
foundations and the resulting evils would
be incalculably great. I have said that
in that case these treaties would be nul
lities, & who can doubt it? The President
& Senate have the power to make treaties
but a treaty made with a party not com
petent to make it, is not a treaty; it is a
compact as distinguishable from a treaty
and the President and Senate are not
competent to make a compact which is
not a treaty; so that every such treaty is
void as a treaty: because the Indian na
tion was not competent to make it; and it
is void as a compact, because the Pres
ident and Senate are not competent to
make it. If this be so, my honorable
friend from Tennessee need not disquiet
himself upon the subject of his contradic
tory obligations: for upon this doctrine,
these treaties have created no obligations
upon the United States.
Again; I have to remark that if these
Indian nations, thus situated, are not
competent to make treaties, no more
treaties can be made with them; that the
treaties which have bcen made, and not
ratified, if any such there be, must be re
jected ; treaties which have been pro-
Jected, for the purchase and extinguish
ment of Indian titles, as that in In
dians for instance, must be abandoned:|
We are to get no more lands from them|
by treaty; if you are to get them at all,
you are to get them by compact, and
this compact to be made, not by the Ex
ecutive and Senate, but by the Legisla
tue. And, pray, how is the Legislature
to make such a compact? It would not
be possible, I think, to overcome the
difficulties to this mode of acquiring In
dian Jands.
And then, in case of future wars with
those Indian nations, how are they ev
er to be terminated?’ and how are the
relations of peace ever to be restored,
without the intervention of treaties? I
E;NI] ome then wish to sce estab-
lished a doctrine fraught with these, and
it may with other equally deplorable con
sequences’ 1 should hope not.
%ut if we must prove, what has never‘
before been denied—what has always!
been admitted—admitted in theory, andl
in practice admitted—namely, that the
Indian nations within our territorial boun
daries are competent to make treaties—
Ellow is that compeusn?' to be made out?
I agree that an Indian nation, to be
Icompetcm to make a treaty, must be a
sovercignty ; for that treaties, properly
so called, can only be mwade by sove
reigns with sovereigns; but for this pur
pose it is not material whether the sove
reignty be dependent or independent;
sovereingty is all that is necessary to this
competency. The honorable gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. M’Kinley) said the
sovercigns must be equal; but he will
find no authority for that opinion, if by
equal, he meant any thing more than that
both must be sovereign. A depend
ent sovereignty is still a sovereignty, and
comscu-nt to make a treaty, I under
stood this to be admitted by the hon
orable gentleman from Georgia, in the
outset of his argument; though I could
not reconcile the subsequent part of his
urlfilmcnt with this admission,
ow what is sovereignty? It is to be
sut juris;—that is, to be subject, within |
itself, to no law but the law of its own‘
making; externally it may be subject to|
lanother jurisdiction, and then it is a de-
Ipendent sovereignty—to what degree de
|pendent, will depend upon the treaty or
treaties by which it is made dependent,
if so made by treaty. Now th& is the
condition of every Indian nation in our
country, sui juris, and therefore sover
eigns; but subject externally to another
jurisdiction, and therefore a dependent
sovereign. This has always been their
condition since they ceased to be inde
pendent sovereignties. Since they ceased
to be independent sovereignties, there
never has been a time when this was not
their condition. When, or where, I
would ask, has any Indian nation been
subject within itself’ to the law of another
jurisdiction ? I know of none ; 1 have
heard of none. If there be one, that
one would be an exception from the rest,
but would not effect the right of the rest:
that one may have relinquished its right
to be sui juris; and then it would not be
r('%rded as an exception,
ow the fact of being sui juris, and al
ways of having been so, constitutes the
right to be so. I would be glad to know
if any nation has, or ever had, a better
title to be juri sui juris than the fact of be
ing so, and of always having been so,
than a present Y\ossession, I':,:)rtified by
a prescription that knows no begin
ning; that runs back as far as memory
or tradition goes, and beyond to whcre;
it is lost in that oblivion in which un
known times and their memorials are all
buried and lost? And such is the title of
every Indian nation now in fact sui ju
ris, to be, and remain sui juris. Thcre‘
never was, there never can be, any bet
ter title to the right of being sui juris.—
To the validity of such a title, its ac
knowledgement by other sovereignties
is not necessary ; but if it were, there
never has been a time in which it was
not acknowledged by other sovereign
ties, or “vas denied by any other; but it
is not necessary, for a right in present
possession, fortified and sanctified by
such a prescription as this is, stands on
higher grnumr, much higher, than any
acknowledgement by other sovereign
tics could place it. Unquestionably
then these nations are sui juris, of right
sui juris; therefore sovereign, therefore
l)co‘mpctept to make treaties,
A multitude of matters have been urgedl
upon our consideration on the other side,
not to disprove the fact of the Indian na
tions being at this moment sui juris, nor
the fact that they always have been sui
Jjuris; for these can neither be disproved
nor denied; but to prove that though they
are sut juris de facto, that they are not'
sui juris de jure; not being aware, as it'
appears to me, that the fact constitutes
the right.
It is said, for instance, that the crown
of Great Britain claimed a right to this
country by the right of discovery ; that
what was the right of the crown, is now
our right, and t%xerefore that the Indian
nations are not sui juris de jure.
Now what was the right as claimed by
discovery? (I make no question of that
right, for the time has gone by for mak
\ing that question, except as a moralist or
historian. Whatever was the defect of
lthat right originally time now has suppli
ed that defect, as far as defect of right
can be supzlied by lapse of time.) fiut
what was that right as claimed by dis
covery? It was this: a right to the do
main of the country, subject to the right
of oceupancy by the Indian nations; and
that occ(:rancy to be without restriction
as to mode, and without limitation as to
time; with the right of alienation of their
possessory title, restricted to the proprie
tor of the domain. This was the claim
‘ofthe British crown as founded on dis
covery: it was so defined and settled in
the case referred to by the honorable
entleman from Alabama, (Mr. M’Kin-
Fey) the case of Johnson and M’lntosh.
It was so settled by the court, in that
case, because it had been so settled by
what had become the customary law of
nations. But did the King of Great
Britain claim s:'or that is the important
question,) did he claim these Indian na
tions as his subjects over whom or for
IVhom, he dad a rifht to lefiialate, for
their internal regulation > No, never;
never was a claim of that kind advanced;
never heard of ; never thought of ; that
claim left them as it found them, subject
within themselves only to their own juris-'
| Besides this notorious fact, the right|
of pre-emption, claimed by discovery, is
decisive to prove that the right of juris-|
(diction was not claimed. llf the crown|
'claimed these Indian nations as his sub
jects, why claim a pre-emptive right to
[ their tities? Did any king elaim a pre-|
I‘emptive right to the land titles of his own
!Isubjec!s? Never. If discovery thenis,
I'a good authority for what it claims, it is
good for what it disclaims : it disclaims
| the right of jurisdiction over and for the'
Indian nations, It therefore affirms and
confirms this right in them, and guaran
ties it to them. Is it possible t%mt the
honorable gentleman from Mississippi
can suppose that the case of Grenada is
a case in point? That was the case of a
conquest, and the conquest ceded by the
'treaty of peace to the conqueror, to be
|holden as a part of his dominions, and'
‘lthe people as a part of his subjects; and
Iboth have been so holden ever since. |
It is said again, that a State has a
right to exercise jurisdiction over Xcr-I
sons within its territorial limits, and of
course over the Indian nation within its
limits; and, there fore, that such Indian|
nation can have no right to exemption
from that jurisdiction. If this State riflnti
was admitted, it would not disprove e}
Indian right; it would only rrove that the
two rights were incompatible, and that if
the State right is exerted and executed
lagainst the %ndian right, that the Indian
right must be annihilated. That the ln-I
dian nation is placed within the limits of
another jurisdiction, proves nothing a
’gninst the Indian right, for that must be
the situation’of every Indian nation with-|
in our territorial limits. It is so, and was
to be so, by the very claim originally|
made to the country, on which it was
originally settled, and by which it is now]
held. '{his country was in the posses-!
sion of these Indian nations; the British
claim to it as founded in discovery, was
a claim to the domain of their country,|
subject to their right of occupancy. They
of course must be situated in that domain.
That domain was parcelled out into colo
nies now become States; the Indian na
tions of course must fall within the limits
of those States. So that by our very
claim to their country, they were to be’
and to remain within our jurisdiction,and
exempt from that jurisdiction, and sub-
Ject only to their own.
To strengthen this State claim against
the Indian right, it is said that the State,
within its territorial limits has all the'
rights which the crown of Great Britain
has within the same limits. But, as has
been stated, the crown of Great Britain|
made no such claim against the Indian
right. Happy will it be for these na
tions, if the claim of that erown is adopt
ed by the States as the measure of their
claim,and if they will content themselves
therewith. |
Still it is said that a sovereign inde
pendent State has a right to jurisdictien
over all its own popufation ; and that
these States were sovereign and indepen
dent when they adopted this constitution;
and that they did not surrender this attri
bute of sovereignty by that adoption.—
Admitting all this, it is still to be proved‘
that an Indian nation within a State is a'
Yart of the population of that State.—
fow can this be setiously pretended ?
The population of a State, is the popula
tion which constitutes the community,
which constitutes the State, which is
protected by the laws and amenable to
the laws of the State as that community.
But an Indian nation within a State, is.
not a part of that community, “is not pro
tected by the laws, and amenable to the
laws of the State as a part of that com-l
The population of the United States‘
is taken periodically, by regular census;
it is now about to be taken for the fourth
time; were the Indian nations within
the U. States ever included in any cen
sus, as a part of the population of the U.
States? Never, as every one knows,—
And why not, if all persons within the
limits of a sovereign jurisdiction are ne
cessarily the subjects of the jurisdiction,
as a part of the population under that
jurisdiction. I
The States pay direct taxes to the
Unitggd States, in proportion to their num
bers; that is, to their population. But
are the Indian nations within the
States included in that population ?
Never—they are exprculz'r- excluded by
the constitution of the United States.
Then, the States themselves, by adopt
ing the constitution,” have defined whit
constitutes their own population ; and
have excluded from it these Indian na
tions. '
Still it is insisted, and as a branch of |
the same argument, that the constitution’
gives the Executive no authority to goI
within a State and make a Treaty with
a part of its population. This is true;
but an Indian nation within a State, as
we have just seen, is not a part of its
population. The power to make Trea-‘
ties, as given by the constitution, is a
general power, and may be exercised at
the Executive discretion, with any na
tion or people competent to make a trea
ty; and it is not material where that na
tion is situated or placed; if competent
to make a treaty, our Executive is com
petent to make it with them,
Again it has been said that in several
States in which is situated some tribe or
remnant of some tribe of Indians, that
these States have subjected those In
dians to State legislation. Without stop
ping to inquire how that fact is, and if a
fact, whether it has been with the will or
against the will of these Indians; it is
enough to say, that if those States have
undertaken that legislation over those
Indians against their will ; and while
they were a tribe and swi juris; and
when up to that time, they had alwayn!
been sui l)m-n, that fact, instead of prov-|
ing a right in that legislation, Xroves al
wrong by that Leqislature ; and instead
of disproving the Indian right, it proves
a violation of that right, I trustit is too
late in the day, and so ‘enlightened as
this is, to contend that a fact which is
Ia wrong, is a precedent to justify a sim
ilar wrong ; and that a violation of right
lin one case, becomes a warrant for a
violation of right in all similar cases.
In the multitude of matters urged up
on our consideration, to show that the
Indian nations are not sui juris de jure,
lthcse are all which appear to me to have
the appearance of argument; for in the
Irest, I confess I cannot see even that
luppem'unco. It is said for instance, (and
‘l notice it as a sample of the rest—for it'
would be endless to notice them all in|
ldctuil,) that the Indian is an inveterate
'savage, and incapable of civilization.—
'Admitting this to be the fact, which I by
I"" means do admit, what has it to do
with the question, whether his nation is
sui juris and competent to make a trea
ty? Is the Indian rightless a right bc
cause the Indian is a savage? or does
our civilization give us a title to his right?
A right which he inherits equally with us,
from the gift of nature, and nature’s God.
The Indian is a man and has all the rights
of man. The same God who made us,
made him, and endowed him with the
same rights; for “of one blood hath he
made all the men who dwell upon the
earth.” And if we trample upon these
rights; if we force him to surrender them;
or extingnish them in his blood; the cry
of that injustice will rise to the throne of
that God and there, like the blood of
Abcl, will testify against us. If we
should be arraigned for the deed before
his awful bar and should plead our boast
ed civilization in its defence, it would, in
his sight, but add deeper damnation to
the deed, and merit but the more signal
retribution of his eternal justice. As to
the civilization of the Indian that is his
own concern in the pursuit of his own hap
piness; if the want of it is a misfortune;
it is his misfortune ; it neither takes
from his rights, nor adds to our own.
As to his being an inveterate savage,
and incapable of civilization, I do not
believe it; in that respect, I believe
he 18 like the rest of mankind.—
The savage state is the natural state of
man, and that state has charms to the
savage, which none but the savage
knows. Man no where, at no time, ever
rose from the savage to the civilized man,
but by the spur of an absolute necessity ;
a necessity which controlled and could
not be controlled; it was not until he
could no longer live as a savage; or go
where he could live as a savage, that fie
would submit himself to that incessant
labor and severe restraint, which lies at
the foundation of all civilization ; and to
which nothing but education and habit
reconciles the nature even of civilized
man. The wild and free nature of the
savage, unaccustomed to involuntary and
constant labor, and to the multiplied and
severe restraipts of civilized society, re
volts at the i:fea of that labor and those
restraints; and his strong repugnance to|
them can only be overcome, as I have|
said, by the force of an overruling ne-|
cessity, I have said this, not thatf dis
lapprovc or would discourage attempts at
their civilization; but to account for the
only partial success, if it has been only
partial, which has attended those at-|
tempts; and at the same time to vindicate
the Yndiun from the charge of incapacity
for civilization; any further forth, than
as it is applicable to all mankind, while,
in a savage state, That very necessity
exists, and is beginning to exert its civ
ilizing tendency, where the tribes in
tquestion now are ; but will no longer
exist if they are removed as is contempla
ted by this bill.
Again, it is alleged against one of
these nations, situated not in one, but in
several of these States, that they have
been guilty of an act which forfeits their
right to live independently of State juris
diction, and which requires that the for
feiture should be immediately and rigor
ously enforced. It is the act of tficir
having changed the form of their govern-,
ment for their own internal regulation,.—
It seems that to better their condition,
and with a view to their own civilization, |
they have discarded that of the savage,
nn({ adtxted the government of civilized
man. And itis a government well de
vised to improve that condition, & insure
that civilization; a government that is in
itself a monument of wisdom, that speaks
volumes in favor of their capacity for
civilization, and oftheir advances t{cre
lin, for it has every essential feature of a
free and well balanced government. It
is evidently not a work of blind imita
tion for while it has followed the best mod
els, it hus followed them only so far as
th(i{y were adapted to their circumstances;
and it is original so far as their circum-|
stances require it to be so—and where it|
is original, it is no less admirable than'
"whcre it is imitative. Attentive to those
circumstances—so far from assuming any
powers inconsistent with their external
relations, ecither to the United States or
to those States, that government recog
nises and ratifies those relations exact‘fy
as they exist, and confines itself entirclyl
to provisions for their own internal police. l
Sensible of their rude state, and with a
view to their own civilization, it makes it
the primary duty of the nation to provide'
the means of education, and to promote
the acquisition and diffusion ol'P knowl
edge. Indeed, all its provisions show a/
wise survey of the present, and a provi
dent forecast for the future. Now, this
new government is not to be tolerated for
a moment: State legislation must comel
and abate it as a nuisance, and the na-|
tion are to be"punished for this atrocious
act, with the forfeiture, and forever, of
every national right. They are not to
be permitted even to resume the govern
ment they had discarded; and to live
again as savages: but they are at once &
»forever to be subjected to the rule of
another jurisdiction, never again to en-
Ijo the right of self government; a right
lwl)n'ich has came down to them from their
ifuthcrs, and through an unknown series
of generations, and {or an unknown se
ries of ages. A right which they had
used, but not abused; certainly not in
the act which is made a pretext for its
111 fated Indians! barbarism, & attcmptsi
at civilization, are alike fatal to your|
rights; but attempts at civilization the
more fatal of the two, T'he jealous of|
their own rights are the contemners ofl
lyours; rmlg and chivalrous States do|
[not thinE it bencath them to take udvnn--I
tage of your weakness. You have lands.
which they want or rather which they de
sire, for they do not want them; your!
lrights stand in their way, and these proudi
and chivalrous States do not think it be
neath them to destroy your rights by thcir‘
legislation. Proud and chivalrous States
do not think it beneath them to prefl-|
ent to your feeble dnd helpless condition,
this alternative—either to abandon your
homes, the habitations you have built, the
fields you have planted, and all the com
forts you have gathered around you; the
homes of your fathers and the sepulchers'
of their dead; and go far into the depths
of an unknown wilderness; there to abide
the destir:{ which mn‘:’ there await you;or
to surrender your rights,and submit your
selves to their power, but to expect no
participation in their rnights, l
An alternative which has planted dis—l
may and dispair in every heart that pal
pitates in that nation; for they see their sit-l
uation,andthat nothing is left them but re
signation to their fate, Within them-‘
sclves they have no resource; without
they have no hope. The guaranties of'
treaties made with the Unite& States—the
faith of a mighty nation pledged for their
protection—which was their hope, is now
their hope no more; like the morning
cloud and the early dew, it has passed
away; for the chief of that mighty nation
has been appealed to, to make good that
gurantee, but has been appeafed to in
vain. He has told them that he will not
’make it good; & that they must submit to
that alternative. But we are told they
have deserved all this, because they have
changed the form of their government.
But has this changed their external rela
tion with the United States? or with those
States? Not in the least. Not in any
one possible ret:rect. The new govern
ent, like the old, is made for their own
internal regulation, and for that object
merely. Swt juris as they are and always
have been, they had a right to make the
law for their own intcrnnf regulation, ac
cording to their own will, and to change
it from time to time, according to that will.
They have done this, and in doing this
they have done no more than they iad a
right to do. If they now are a govern
ment within a government, at which such
an outcry, is made as justifying their de
struction, so they always have been; and
more so now than they always have
been. They have always been what the
gentlemen calls an imperium in emperio—
dependent & without the eternal prerog
atives of sovereignty, but still an impe-|
rium. But no matter—no matter how jus- ‘
tifiable,how properthat change of govern-|
ment was; how strictly a mere exercise of
right, they see and they feel that their
doom is scaled: that the decree is gone
forth, & will be executed. The cry ofthe ‘
miserable Indian will not arrest it; the
sympathy of this nation in that cry will
not arrest it; that sympathy is not credit-|
ed or if credited is despised; and we
are told here, and in a tone of defiance
too, that no power shall arrestit. My
fears are that no powér will arrest it;
none certainly will if this bill pass, and
without this amendment; or then the Ex
ecutive will not arrest it. But if execu
ted, and when executed, for one, I will
say, that these Indians have been made
:the victims of power exerted against
right; the victims of violated faith, the|
'nution’s faith; the victims of violated jus
tice; yes I call God to witness of his viola
ted justice. :
The Senate did not sit Saturday May Ist.|
~ In the House a bill for the relief of
Mrs. Decatur was rejected, 104 to 68.
I In the Senate, on the 2d, some time
Wwas spent upon Mr. Benton’s Land Grad
uation Bill, which was afterwards laid
on the table on his motion. The bill
prescribing the mode of commencing,
rosecuting and deciding controversies
{:etween States, was then taken up, and
Mr. Robbins, having concluded has ar
gument in favor OF it, the Senate ad-
I Inthe House, the bills which were the
special orders of the day, were postpon
ed, and the House, on motion of Mr.
IMallary, went into committee of the
‘whole on the state of the Union. The
Tariff regulation bill was then taken up,
and Mr. Blair, of South Carolina, and
Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, each ad
dressed the committee,
~ The Senate on Tuesday, resolved it
self into a Court of Impeachment for the
trial of Judge Peck. The court being
organized, 5\19 managers on the part of
the House, entered the Senate Chamber
and took their seats within the bar assign
ed them. Proclamation having been
then made, Mr. Buchanan, ol'theilouse,
read to the Senate the articles of im
peachment against Judge Peck, and
when be had eoncluded, the President
‘\nformed the managers that the Senate
would take order on the subject, of which
due notice should be given tothe House.
The managers then retired; when a res
olution was adopted, that a summons bé
issued to Judge I‘eck, returnable on
Tuesday next ; and that the Secretary
inform t{;e H. of Representatives thereof.
On motion of Mr. Tuzewell the Court
of Impeachment then adjourned to Tues
I %‘he bill supplementary to the act au
‘thorizing the citizens of Arkansas and
Florida, to elect their officers, was read
the second and third time, by unanimous
consent, and passed. The bill to re-or
‘ganize the navy of the United States
was taken up asthe general order.—
This bill provides for the creation of
six admirals. The bill hnving been read
Mr. Hayne addressed the Senate in its
'support; and continued until the hour had
arrived for resolving the Senate into a
|Court of impeachment. This business
‘having been concluded, Mr. Hayne
|continued his arguments in its favor,
—When he had concluded, Mr Dick
erson moved to strike out that part of the
bill providing for the creation of six Ad
mirals, which motion prevailed, yeas 23,
nays 17. Mr. Hayne then moved toin
sert a provision for the appointment of
three Admirals. On this motion an in
teresting debate ensued, (duril:’g which
several propositions to amend were
made) and in which the creation of Ad
mirals in the Navy was supported by
Messrs. Hayne, \{’ebster, f,ivingston,
Woodbury, and Johnston, and opposed
Pry Messrs. Dickerson, Forsyth, Foot,
azewell and Holmes The gcnute ad
{;)urncd without taking the question on
Ir. Hayne’s motion.
In the House of Representatives the
annexed resolution,was agreed to unani
Resolved, That the Secretary of the
Treasury be directed to collect and com
municate to this House, at the next ses
sion of Congress, such information (and
report his views on the same) as, in his
(aiinion may be useful and important to
ongress in enacting regulations for the
navigation of steamboats or steam-vessels
with the view to guard against the dan
ger arising from gle bursting of boilers.
In the Senate on Wt!dnesgay, on mo
tion of Mr. Benton, the bill to graduate
the price of the public lands, to make
provision for actual settlers, and to cede
the refuse upon equitable terms, and for
meritorious objects, to the States in which
they lie, was resumed; and after several
amendments were made to the bill, it was
ordered to be engrossed for a third read
in%—ana the Senate adjourned.
n the House on chdnesday, Mr.
Crawford, of Penn. Mr. Barnwell, of
S. Carolina, and Mr. Graham, of Mass.
severally addressed the Committee on
the subject of tariff laws. The committee
rose at 4 o’clock without taking up an
other business,and the House udjourne(i
I The Sarem Murper. R. Crown
inshicld jun. and Geo. Crowninshield;
both of Danvers, Benj. Salmen of Mar
blehead, and Daniel Chase, late resident
iof Salem, have been arrested and fully
committed to take their trial before the
Supreme Court to be holden on the 9th of
Nov. next,at Ipswich,forthe alleged mur
der of Joseph White Esq. of Salem on
the 6th of April last. The Salem Ga
zette relates some of the circumstances
which resulted in the arrest of R. and
G. Crowninshield, Selman, and Chase,
from which we extract the following.
“The suspicions, that gave rise to the
prosecution of those persons, were first
excited by disclosures made by convicts,
two of them in our State prison, one in
Exeter gaol, and Hatch then in New
Bedford gaol.
I On the morning of the murder, as soon
as the tidings reached Boston, two gen
tlemen of that city visited the State firis
on to make inquiries what convicts had
been recently discharged who could be
likely to commit such an offence. One
of the convicts, by the name of Fisher, a
native of Salem, was inquired of; his
disclosures inted attention toward
Hatch, who md been discharged from
the State prison in December last ; Fish
er said that while he and Hatch, had
been fellow-prisoners in Salem Gaol, be
fore their conviction about two years ago,
the robbery of Mr. White had been t:?k
ed of and contemplated, for the purpose
of getting the iron chest.
Inquiries and search were then set on
foot to attempt to find Hatch; it was as
certained that he and one Quiner, of
Beverly, another discharged convict,
had been seen in Salem during the past
winter; but where Hatch was at the time
of tge murder could not be readily discov:
On Saturday night after the murder,
a letter was received here by mail from
the gaoler at New Bedford, inform
ing that a man in gaol there, by the name
of Hall, had, on reading in a newsoaper
a notice of the murder, remarked that he
thought he could tell who had a hand in
it. an express was sent on the follow
ing day, (S[:md;y) from this town to N,
Bedford, to ascertain the rticulars, and
conferencés were had witr Hall, who it
turned out was the person former:{ in
aol here with Fisher and convicte by
fime name of Hatch. Hatch related
the particulars of his being in Salem and
in company with Quiner and some others,
during the past winter—mentioning the
places of their resort, and who were
present—and of this murder having been
concerted at their meetil:’go, the manner
of cormmitting it arranged, by one enter-

xml | txt