.MTA2NA.NzIzNTM

Let the quotations be combined, and it will be seen that they cover the whole ground of controversy between the Cherokees and the State of Georgia; for they establish 1: "That the Cherokees have the right of exclusive possession of their lands, so long as they choose to retain the possession and to use the land as they please. 2: That the lands, even after the discovery, can be acquired from them only by purchase or conquest, and were not, therefore, acquired by the mere discovery. 3: That, the discovery notwithstanding, they have still the right, by relations established between them and the discoverer, to give the law within their own territory, without the power of any tribunal known to the Supreme Court, to reverse or set aside their proceedings." How then, it may be asked by this author, were their rights of absolute sovereignty impaired by the asserted right of discovery? We answer, most materially. They could not alienate their lands, however much they might desire it, strikeout either to individuals or to any other Sovereign that to the discoverer; thus a monopoly was created in his favour, and, consequently, all the benefits of competition were lost to the Indians. Note. Here the fair copy ends and the following pages are in the handwriting of Mr Wirt. They strikeout of interlineations. The first paragraph is marked out and at its close occurs a reference A. which appears to indicate some substitute that has, probably, been lost. -- left side: paragraph marked off by a horizontal line through the indentation and a vertical line down the text Now let us see how the Globe author combats the proposition. He begins very far back, at a cautious distance from the main ground of the controversy (the Constitution, treaties & laws of the United States), and takes up his great position over the rights of these Indians & their lands, growing out of the European discovery of this continent by Christopher Columbus & his successors. This right has been profoundly considered, by the Supreme Court, so far back as the year 1823, in the case of Johnson and