SENATE.] Indian Lands in Indiana-Maison Rouge's Claim. [FEB. 1-7, 1826. ment as aforesaid, and who shall make it clearly appear was ensitled to credit wherever he was known; who, for that such defalcation accrued from unavoidable accident many years, had resided with the Indians, and on the and misfortune." Kankakee river, and spoke the language of several tribes Mr. HOLMES thought the first proviso rendered unne-of Indians. cessary by provisions of the existing law, and called for a division of the question on the two. Mr. SMITH thought the difference of opinion respecting the details of the bill could be better accommodated, and the bill be better matured in committee, and therefore moved its recommitment with the proposed amendments. Mr. FINDLAY spoke to show that the provisions of the bill were inadequate to its professed object. Mr. KANE acquiesced in the expediency of its recommitment; and the bill was recommitted to the Committee on Finance, and the proposed amendment ordered to be printed. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1826. The second point to be considered, regarded the agricultural and commercial interest to the State and the United States, in extinguishing the title to the residue of Indian lands in Indiana. Hitherto the enterprise of the citizens of the State had been confined to the margin of the Wabash. By the extinguishment of the title of the Indians, they would be relieved from the difficulty, and, in a commercial view, free commerce with the States, by an outlet through the Lake Michigan and the Straits at Detroit, to Lake Erie, would be the result, as well as a port of entry, at the margin of Lake Michigan. The benefits from obtaining these lands would not cease here: it would put a check to foreigners embarking and partici pating in the valuable fur trade with the aborigines of the country. The fact is, at this time, said he, those traders who are engaged in the fur trade from abroad, with the Indians, frequently transport their goods into the States, whether smuggled or otherwise, by ascending the river Mr. KING said he would not attempt the eulogy of the St. Joseph's of the Lake to the head of the same river, deceased; but Alabama would long have cause to regret and then conveying them to the river Kankakee, a portthe loss of the valuable services of one of her best, and age of six miles, thence down the latter river to the mouth most enlightened, and most useful citizens: and his nume-of Yellow River, thence up the same to a point crossing rous friends would long deplore the loss of one of the best over to the fine and bold river Tippecanoe, a portage of The fur trade is commerce to all of men. Without further comment, Mr. K. said he would only twelve miles. offer the following resolution: intents and purposes, is highly valuable, and should, (embracing self-defence and preservation,) belong to the citizens of the State and the United States. By the extinguishment of the Indian title to lands in the State, commerce and agriculture will be promoted, and flourish accordingly. Mr. KING, of Alabama, rose, and said it had become his painful duty to announce the death of his honorable colleague, HENRY CHAMBERS, who died on the 25th of last month, while on his way to the Seat of Government to enter on the discharge of his duties in the Senate. Resolved, That the Members of the Senate, from a desire of showing every mark of respect due to the memory of the honorable HENRY CHAMBERS, deceased, late a Senator from the State of Alabama, will go into mourning for him, one month, by the usual mode. The resolution having been agreed to unanimously, Mr. KING again rose, and said that no case had occurred in the Senate, precisely similar to the present, but it was well known that the other House had thought proper to adjourn, on learning the death of one of its members while on his way to the Seat of Government. Mr. K. therefore moved the following additional resolution: Resolved, That, as an additional mark of respect for the memory of the honorable HENRY CHAMBERS, the Senate do now adjourn. The resolution was agreed to, nem. con. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1826. The Senate took up the following resolution, offered yesterday by Mr. NOBLE: "Resolved, That the Committee on Indian Affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation of 50,000 dollars, or such other sum as may be considered sufficient, for the purpose of extinguishing the residue of Indian title to lands in the State of Indiana.' Mr. NOBLE said, in support of his resolution, that the adoption of it might be considered in two points of view: First, whether the Indians, within Indiana, had given any evidence that they were willing to sell the residue of their lands. His object, in introducing the resolution, was, to enable the Committee on Indian Affairs to inquire at the War Department to ascertain that fact. It would be found, upon inquiry, that abundant evidence was in the Department, obtained through Governor Cass, who had been engaged for years as Superintendent of Indian Affairs, in the Northwestern country, that the Indians were willing to sell the lands in question; and that the information, coming through Governor Cass, would be, as it ought to be, satisfactory on this point; for no man had excelled him, as yet, in point of information as to Indians, or Indian affairs, or in integrity on such subjects, when and wherever he had been entrusted. Mr. N. said, he had the same information from Mr. John Conner, who Mr. HOLMES thought there was another point in which the resolution might be viewed-it was that it was a naked proposition to appropriate 50,000 dollars out of the Treasury; and, although, Mr. H. said, he knew the Constitution only restricted the Senate from originating revenue bills, yet it was not customary for this body to originate appropriation bills. and it would be as well not to depart from the usage of the Senate in this respect. Mr. NOBLE replied, that, whatever the practice of the Senate was, in originating appropriation bills, there was no impropriety in doing so, as the Constitution prohibited it only in regard to revenue bills; but, Mr. N. said, the present resolution did not even propose a direct appropriation-it simply directed an inquiry into the expediency of making an appropriation for a certain object, and he hoped it would not be refused. The resolution was then agreed to, nem. con. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1826. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1826. The Senate took up the bill "to authorize the legal representatives of the Marquis de Maison Rouge, and those claiming under him, to institute a suit against the United States by petition, in the courts of the United States, to try the validity of their title." [This case has been repeatedly before Congress in one shape or other, has been often discussed with great attention, and is familiar to most readers. The claim is for two or three hundred thousand acres of land, in Louisiana, and the title rests on the validity of a Spanish grant to de Maison Rouge. The claim has passed from hand to hand, and is now understood to be owned by Mr. S. Girard, of Philadelphia.] On this bill a debate took place, which continued more than two hours, comprehending, in its scope, the history of the claim, the propriety of giving to an individual the MONDAY, FEB. 13, 1826. REPAIR OF POST ROADS. [SENATE. The Senate proceeded, as in committee of the whole, to the consideration of the bill "appropriating a sum of money ($15,000) for the repair of the Post Road between Jackson and Columbus, in the State of Mississippi." Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, (Chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads) explained the object of this bill, which appropriated $15,000 for the repair of the Post Road, in the Indian country, between Jackson and Columbus, in the State of Mississippi, to be expended under the direction of the Postmaster General. NAYS-Messrs. Berrien, Bouligny, Branch, Chase, A similar bill had, he said, passed the Senate, during the Clayton, Cobb, Ellis, Findlay, Hendricks, Holmes, John- last session of Congress, but failed, for want of time, in the son, of Ken. Johnston, of Lou. Kane, King, Knight, Mc-other House. The committee who had reported the bill, Ilvaine, Mills, Noble, Robbins, Rowan, Ruggles, Sand- had received ample information, from the Postmaster Geford, Seymour, Van Buren, Van Dyke, White, Willey,neral, and from other quarters, of the vast importance of this road, of its being out of order, and of the necessity of through the Indian lands, over which no State has any the appropriation at present asked for. The road runs control, therefore, would not involve any constitutional question. In its present state, the road is so bad that the communication is very precarious, and sometimes impossible. Williams-28. The question then being on certain amendments report ed to the bill by Mr. VAN BUREN, from the Judiciary Committee, a motion was made to adjourn, which pre valed. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1826. The Senate took up the unfinished business of yesterday, being the bill to authorize the claimants under the title of the Marquis de Maison Rouge, to institute a suit against the United States, to try the validity of that title. Some verbal amendments, reported by the Judiciary Committee, having been agreed to in Committee of the Whole, and being reported to the Senate, Mr. CHANDLER, of Maine, said he should be unwilling to lay out any money within the State of Mississippi, or making a post road, especially as the writer of a statement (read by the Secretary) on which the committee seemed to rely, was doubtful whether this was the best road that could be had. In the State of Maine, when they made a road passing through lands owned by Indians, they were under the necessity of doing it themMr. WOODBURY moved "that the bill, with the pro-selves; and he thought the State of Mississippi was as well posed amendments, be recommitted to the Judiciary able to make its own roads as they were in the State of Committee, with instructions to make the bill general Maine. providing a similar mode of settling controversies, as so similar titles in all cases, with a general limitation as to claims under such titles, if not thus settled;" and Mr. W. followed his motion with a statement of his reasons in its favor. Mr. KING, of Alabama, said the State of Mississippi had not the power to make this road. The road runs through the Indian country, over which the State of Mississippi had no control. The appropriation asked for is not more than sufficient to accomplish the desired purA debate ensued, which occupied the remainder of the pose. They had formerly made an appropriation for the day's sitting. Mr. VAN BUREN opposed, briefly, the object contemplated by this bill-how that had been exmotion for recommitment. Mr. HAYNE submitted, at pended he could not say. The committee had had the large, his objections to the bill, and his reasons for doubt- subject under their consideration; they had communicated ing the validity of the claim. Mr. RANDOLPH followed with the Postmaster General, and Mr. K. said he was not on the same side, and delivered, further, his objections to disposed to delay the passage of the bill, as, from the the bill. Mr. WOODBURY made some additional re- great confidence that was placed in the Postmaster Genemarks in support of the modification which he had pro-ral, they might be satisfied he would not require a larger posed to the bill. Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, spoke at considerable length against the motion to re-commit, and its object-in support of the bill, and of the considerations, both towards the State of Louisiana and to the claimants, which made it incumbent on Congress to settle the claim without further delay; and in reply to those gentlemen who had opposed the bill, or the claim. Mr. TAZEWELL replied, also, at considerable length, to Mr. JOHNSTON, and against the bill. Mr. VAN BUREN then intimated a desire to submit his views on the subject; but, it being near the usual hour of adjournment, moved that the Senate now adjourn; and then the Senate adjourned. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1826. sum than would be sufficient to put the road in a proper situation for the transportation of the mail. Mr. ELLIS, of Mississippi, said the object proposed was, that this route should be so improved as to enable the mail to be transported with safety from Jackson to Columbus, in the State of Mississippi, and this could not be effected unless this appropriation was made. The water courses which intersect this road in various directions, require bridges, the swamps also require causeways, that post carriages may pass in security. He knew, from an experience of several years, that the mail arrived at Natchez and New Orleans in a very wretched and torn condition; and merchants complain that their losses are immense, in consequence of the negligence of Govern. ment in this respect. The gentleman from Maine had said that, because this The Senate was principally occupied to-day in the con- bill did not provide for opening roads in Maine, that it sideration of Executive business. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1826. The Senate was principally occupied to-day in the consideration of the bill for the relief of James Dickson & Co. and other business not of a general nature; after which, adjourned to Monday. VOL. II-7 should not be done in the present instance; but this road has already been opened by the Government of the United States, and it is now proposed to put it in such a state that the mail might be transported in covered carriages to Natchez and New Orleans; this he thought was an object well worthy the attention of the Government, and he hoped no opposition would be made to the passage of the bill, as the question did not involve the constitutional power of Congress in regard to roads, &c. [FEB. 13, 1826. Mr. ELLIS said the road did not pass through one-seventh part of the State of Mississippi, and it was impossiMr. CHANDLER could not see why the constitutional ble for the State Government of Mississippi to have any question would not be brought up as much in this case as authority over those lands till the title to them was extinin making any other road-if the committee were in pos- guished. The gentleman seemed to suppose that the session of no further information on the subject, sufficient great power which had so often been controverted in that proof had not been produced to show that this road was House was now about to be advocated by the friends of the best possible road that could be had; and he was not the bill. Mr. E. said he was not about to advocate it, nor willing that the United States should lay out any money to indicate an idea of this kind, that this Government poson it. If any were to be laid out, he admitted there was sessed the power to establish a road, or to cut a canal, no officer in whom he would place more confidence than through the several States, without their approbation; but in the officer at the head of the Post Office Department. the power does exist in the Congress of the United States, Let the State of Mississippi make the road, and the Unit-under the existing state of things relating to the Indian ed States would have no objection to giving them all the country within the several States, to establish roads, in the authority they could require. exercise of the provisions established by the Federal Constitution. Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, said this was not a road belonging to a State, but was one in which every part of Mr. EATON, of Tennessee, said a treaty had been enthis Nation was interested in keeping open. All commu-tered into in 1801, between the United States and the nication, by land, from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Choctaw Indians. The question of State rights had not Baltimore, all the great cities on the seaboard, and all the then arisen, and the Government of this country was in towns and villages in the country North of the Southern the hands of Mr. Jefferson. Under such an administrapoint of our Union, must pass on this route. It was a tion, no attempt would have been made to enter into a road opened by the United States, according to a treaty treaty with a distinct sovereignty, that went to invade the stipulation with the Indians; and because it served to con- principles of the Constitution. By the second article of that nect the United States together, they had appropriated treaty, the Indians gave their consent that a wagon road seven or eight thousand dollars for the purpose of open- should be constructed through their lands, and if the idea ing it, and the present appropriation was required to put was a correct one, that to make such a road was unconit in a state of repair. stitutional, was it not strange that the Senate should not Mr. COBB, of Georgia, was perfectly satisfied of the have conceived this idea in 1801, or, if they did conceive expediency of opening this road, if it were to be consider-it, that they should have acted as they did? Mr. E. said, ed merely as a matter of expediency-but he concurred a road had been made from the State of Georgia to the in the opinion of the gentleman from Maine, that, if the State of Tennessee, which was at present the main constitutional question was not involved in this bill, it high-way between these two States. A road had would not be involved in any one. Did the circumstance also been made through Alabama to Fort Stoddart, and of this road passing through the Indian territory, change the road which was at present the subject of discussion, the principle at all? In what way does it? [Mr. JOHNSON, was considered in this House, and an appropriation made of Kentucky, said, by treaty stipulation.] A treaty stipu- for it. Ever since this Government had existed, Mr. E. lation gives to the United States no other powers than are said, they had proceeded on the principle that the Indians conferred on the Government by the Constitution. Sup- are a distinct sovereignty; it was an anomaly that one pose the Government of the United States stipulated by sovereignty should exist within the orbit of another, but treaty with Great Britain to do a thing it was not constitu- they always had proceeded on this principle, and if they tional to do, was a power thereby communicated to the had any right to interfere with them, why did they proGovernment to do that thing? Mr. C. said he did not ceed with them in the character of sovereignties? Mr. E. like this plan of the United States acquiring power by was present when the Postmaster General made an inquiry stipulations of treaty. It was a dangerous doctrine. It of the Mail Contractor for this section of the country, as seemed to him that when they came to view this question to the state of the road, and the answer was, it is almost fairly, it involved all the great principles as to the power impassable. The principal part of this road was opened of this Government to make roads and canals. Supposing in 1801, and the portion for which they were now about they were to take the reason assigned by gentlemen in to make an appropriation, was opened some years ago. support of the present measure, that this road was neces- It is against the religious principles of an Indian to work sary for the purpose of facilitating the transportation of in any way, and the consequence is, that the roads the mail. In the route from Baltimore, somewhere on to- through their country are worse than elsewhere. If there wards Philadelphia, it was just as necessary that the road was any force in the objection urged by the gentleman should be repaired; the mail is obstructed almost daily from Georgia, at least so far back as 1801, something on that route for the want of a proper road, and in some would have been thought about it in the Senate, when weather it is almost impossible to get on at all; and was they entered into this treaty with the Indians; by the se it not just as expedient to have the route from Baltimore cond article of which, privilege is granted to the United towards Philadelphia repaired, so as to facilitate the trans- States to open a road through their country. portation of the mail between those two cities, as it was to have a road through the Chickasaw or Choctaw territory, to facilitate the transportation of the mail between New York and New Orleans? Certainly it was. Mr. C. said he should like to see which was the clause in the Federal Constitution under which they claimed authority to make this road through the State of Mississippi; he could not see any reason why this circumstance of the road passing through the Indian country should change the principle in the smallest degree, or confer any new power on the General Government. His ideas on this subject, Mr. C. said, he had occasion to submit to the Senate some time ago, and it was not his intention now to go into any remarks that would make him repeat what he had then advanced. There was no power in this Government to make this or any other road through the State. Mr. CHANDLER had no doubt the road wanted re pairs; but the treaty announced nothing more than that the United States had extinguished the Indian title to that portion of the country. If the State of Mississippi had no jurisdiction over the land, let them come to Congress and ask for it. Mr. EATON contended there was no cession of property, on the part of these Indians, by the provisions of this treaty; there was not even a cession of sovereignty. They, in their sovereign capacity as Indians, yielded their consent to the United States to open a road. The United States could not give the State of Mississippi any sovereignty over it. Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, observed, that the Indians were considered as sovereign within the States wherein they reside, unless the title and jurisdiction are extin FEB. 13, 1826.] Repair of Post Roads. [SENATE. The guished. We are in this singular predicament. The United from Maine-to' what clause in the Constitution did he States is a great wheel; there are twenty-four little ones trace the power to make or repair this road? Would the within it, and there are several others within each of these gentleman say it was from the treaty-making power? Mr. little wheels. If the United States have no right to make C. admitted, that the Government of the United States, so a road through either of these sovereignties, and the In-long as the territory was theirs, perhaps might, under the dians will not make a road, it follows that we are to have clause of having a right, exclusively, to legislate for the no road. Mr. H. said he did not perceive the force of the territory, adopt ways and means to have a road made constitutional objection bearing on that part of the State through the territory. When this treaty was made with that is under the jurisdiction of the Indians. The State the Chickasaws, it was the Territory of the United States, cannot exercise its laws; it cannot administer justice; its and the Government at that time proceeded to open the laws could not reach the Indian country. The State road, precisely on the same principle that it had done in could not lay out the road through the Indian country, the territory of Florida, or in Michigan, or in any other unless they legislate for the Indians, and consider them as Territory, before being admitted into the Union. Mr. C. citizens of the State. There might arise a very grave said, his idea was, that the moment a State was admitted question out of all this, whether Indians, within the limits into the Union, that portion of the sovereignty of the United of an individual State, can be considered as a sovereign States which could be exercised under the Constitution, power, acting with and negotiating with the United States. and which might be defined to be the right of jurisdiction, The Constitution of the United States, in apportioning the ceased, except in cases specially provided for by the FeRepresentatives among the several States, in that enume-deral Constitution. Sovereignty consisted, he thought, in ration, says, "and excluding Indians not taxed, three- something more than the right of soil. The mere right of fifths of all other persons.” The Constitution contem- soil is a very small portion of the sovereignty of a nation. plates Indians not taxed as not coming within the power He admitted that, till the lands were sold by the United of the Government of the United States. But there is still States, they had the right of soil; but, as soon as the State another question behind that; the question whether the of Mississippi was admitted into the Union, the whole right State has the power to tax the Indians within the limits of of State jurisdiction accrued to that State, so far as rethat State. Until they have done that, till they consider garded the exercise of any sovereignty, except what was the Indians as subject to their laws, so long will they le- specially conferred by the Federal Constitution. gislate for themselves, and the State jurisdiction will not United States have no other jurisdiction in the State of Misextend to them, and they will have a control over the ter-sissippi, than they have in the State of Georgia or Maine. ritory, exclusive of the State. How, then, would this As to the expediency of this measure, Mr. C. admitted constitutional objection apply? It was contended that we the road might be very necessary, and the gentleman had no right to exercise jurisdiction over a road of our own from Maine stated this difficulty: The State of Mississippi making, within the limits of a sovereign State. The rea- cannot, or will not; the Indians will not; the General Goson of this was, that the State had reserved to itself this vernment cannot make it; therefore there must be no jurisdiction, and had never given it to us by the constitu- road. Concerning the road in Maryland, to which he tion. Mr. H. said he understood this treaty was made be- had before adverted, Mr. C. said, one portion of the inhafore that State became a State; the stipulation was made bitants of Maryland and part of Delaware, wished to have by the Indians to the United States, and the United States it in one direction, and another part wished it to be in anohad the power to stipulate with the Indians and to receive ther. The upper portion of the People are not rich stipulations from them. Could the State, by being incor- enough to make it themselves, or have not the power, porated into the Union, do away with any of those stipu-and they apply to Congress for an appropriation to repair lations previously made, and which, at the time of making the upper road; here is a case presented to us: they want them, they had a right to make? The compact was made to make the road where it ought to run, and where the by Powers competent to contract, by which a road was to mail is subjected to all those inconveniences to which it is be made through this identical territory. If this compact subject in the road which we are now discussing. Mr. C. is done away, by admitting the State of Mississippi into said, his idea was, that whatever power the United States the Union, then that goes for nothing. could have exercised over the territory, in opening this road, the moment the State of Mississippi was admitted into the Union, so far as regards the right of jurisdiction over this road, it devolved to the State. Look to the treaty, said Mr. C. and see whether the Indian title is not extinguished to this portion of land; and all gentlemen would admit that the moment the Indian title was extinguished, the jurisdiction would accrue, over the lands thus extinguished, to the State. Mr. C. then quoted the treaty-"and the same shall continue forever a highway for the citizens of the United States;" and contended that it was as clear a renunciation of jurisdiction by the Indians as ever was made; they gave up their power; they ceded to the United States the right of making this road; and from the moment the treaty was ratified, the power was vested in the United States, because it was a territory; and so soon as the State of Mississippi came into the Union, this jurisdiction over the road, which belonged to the United States, as sovereign over the country, whilst it was a territory, devolved on the State. Mr. WOODBURY, of New Hampshire, observed, that the State of Mississippi could not tax the land, because the land was exempted from taxation-it belonged to the United States-it was Congress alone that could tax it. When roads passed through lands owned by individuals in Mississippi, the State did not ask Congress to interferethey taxed the land. But, when roads passed through the United States' lands in Mississippi, they taxed them by asking for a grant from Congress; and, the question was, Mr. W. said, whether Congress should make that grant, when it was so much for the public benefit? Mr. COBB was sorry he did not see this question in the same point of view as the gentleman from Maine, (Mr. HOLMES,) and he would put this question to the gentleman: To what clause in the Federal Constitution did they trace the power of making this road? The gentleman from Tennessee had supposed his objections to be, that it was an invasion of State rights. Mr. C. said, whenever they exercised a power, which was not authorized by the Constitution, it was an invasion of the rights of the States or the rights of the People. The great objection he had to adopt these measures was, that it was an usurpation by the Federal Government, of power not conferred on it. He denied that any thing could confer a power on the Federal Government, but the Federal Constitution; and this brought him again to the question put to the gentleman Mr. HOLMES said, he felt a little alarmed when he saw his friend from Georgia rise, and ask the question which he had put to him, with so much confidence-and if he could not put his finger on that clause of the Constitution of the United States which authorized the appropriation for this road, he would not make it. He was not one of those who believed that they might obtain that power by SENATE.] Repair of Post Roads. [FEB. 13, 1826. priety and necessity of the measure, they would make the appropriation, after what had been stated by way of matter of fact, on the subject. Mr. COBB remembered the circumstances alluded to by the gentleman from Kentucky; he was a member of Congress at that time, and he voted against the appropriation for the road from Fort Hawkins, although it was in Georgia. He hoped the time was not yet come when the Senate were to be tied down by a precedent of such a character as that. He could refer the gentleman to other precedents. In that same book, he would probawould certainly not deny that that law was unconstitutional; if he admitted that, it was no precedent to settle a question of constitutionality, and it would be still lawful for them to object to another sedition law, on the ground of its unconstitutionality. The gentleman would also find a law for the making of the Cumberland Road, which originated during the good old days of Jefferson. Mr. C. said, in his opinion, that also was unconstitutional, and, so far as regarded himself, it would form no precedent to him, and he should make the same reply in regard to every other statute that the gentleman should bring in support of this bill. He contended that no constitutional question could be settled in that way. When a measure was brought forward, every man would judge for himself, and he was bound to do so, not only by the general principles of duty, but by the solemn and only oath he had taken in this House. Therefore, when gentlemen produced precedents of this kind, he gave notice now, he should not admit them in Constitutional questions. They might do very well for a Court, but not for a Legislature. On constitutional principles, there could be no precedent. Mr. ELLIS moved to lay the bill on the table, at the suggestion of a friend from Georgia, but subsequently withdrew his motion. construction, which was not plainly and unequivocally granted in the instrument. He was not an advocate for constructive or implied powers. He understood that, at the time this Territory belonged to the United States, they made a compact with the Indians that a road might be made, which should not be interrupted. Afterwards the State of Mississippi was admitted into the Union, and the road had not been made, and now they applied to Congress to make this road. This was the clause of the Constitution on which he relied for the power to make it. "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union, but no new State shall be formed or erected with-bly find a certain law, called a sedition law: the gentleman in the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress." The main proposition here, Mr. H. remarked, was connected with another clause: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the Territory or other property belonging to the United States: and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State." This, Mr. H. said, was all to be taken into consideration, referring to the Territory that then was to be carved into States, and the Territory that should afterwards remain. The last clause was a very important one: "new States may be admitted into the Union." Connect the last clause with that, "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed," &c. Why was it inserted? "New States may be admitted into the Union," but the property which was reserved for the Territories was intended, some of it, to belong to the States, when they should become States. This clause was intended to preserve all the rights of the United States and of the States, when they were admitted into the Union, and all the stipulations previously made between the United States and the Territories of the United States, were to be firm and inviolable, in this latter clause of this article of the Constitution. If that were the case, and Mr. H. said he could conceive no other reason why this clause should be inserted, he would recur to the fact, that the right of the United States to make a road within the Indian country, had been stipulated for, and had been vested in the United States, before that State came into the Union. The State afterwards came into the Union, and there was nothing by that admission that would go to prejudice the claim of the United States to make this road, or the claim of the State to any thing that was granted to it as a Territory of the United States. The stipulation was fairly made and never rescinded, and was reserved by the express clause in the Constitution to be valid, and effectual. Mr. H. thought, on this point, from this clause of the Constitution, the power might be fairly inferred. Mr. HOLMES made some further remarks, in support of the positions he had advanced, and in reply to Mr. COBB. Mr. HARRISON, of Ohio, supposed that the gentleman from Georgia had been so completely driven out of the field, on the constitutional question, that he would not have entered it again; but he found he was like the character ascribed to the American soldier by the European soldier: it was very difficult to make him believe he was beaten. With regard to this point, Mr. H. said, he should consider him so, and should say nothing in relation to the constitutional part of this question. And, then, the question recurred, as to the expediency of the measure. They were told this was the only approach, by mail route, to the great commercial depot of New Orleans; and it was in such a state as to be nearly impassable. From this statement of the case, he imagined there was no member in the Senate that would deny the necessity of this work. The question was, who was to do it? It was one of those Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, referred to the second cases, he acknowledged, that presented the importance volume of the Laws of the United States, and cited, as of the constitutional power, vested in Congress, to make cases in point, in answer to Mr. COBB, the roads which these roads, in a better point of view than any other that had been made by the United States, from Fort Hawkins, he knew of the right of passing through an intermediate in Georgia, and Fort Stoddert, in Alabama. These pre-country (a State if they pleased) in which the interests of cedents he thought conclusive, as to the power to make all the other States of the Union were more involved than the road now under discussion. There had been an ap- the State through which the road passed. Such was the propriation for opening this road, and they now asked for fact, in the present instance. There was not a State in the an appropriation for repairing it. The appropriations for Union-certainly ten of them-but was more interested opening this road, had been made under the administra-in passing this road, than the State of Mississippi. They tions of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe; and, if his friend were told that the State could not do it if she would, beconcurred with him as to the expediency of the measure, cause she would be considered a trespasser on those parts and it was not to be doubted, where repeated appropria- of it which did not belong to her, and to which no title tiors had settled this question, he hoped he would permit had been given by the United States. Under these cirthe Constitutional question to rest, till he came to matters cumstances she could not; and if she could, she would not of greater moment, when it would give him more plea- do it; because she is less interested in it than many of the sure to hear him, and he always heard him with pleasure States. Therefore, it is, that an application is made of a on that great and vital question. On the present occasion, grant of this small sum of money, to facilitate the conveyMr. J. did hope that, if the Senate believed in the pro-lance of the mail on the most important route in this cour |