A Book of the United States / Exhibiting its geography, divisions, constitution, and government ... and presenting a view of the republic generally, and of the individual states; together with a condensed history of the land, from its first discovery to the present time. The biography of about two hundred of the leading men: a description of the principal cities and towns; with statistical tables

by Unknown

About this time, Samuel Worcester and other missionaries were arrested, by order of the governor, and taken before the superior court of Gwinnett county, for refusing to obtain a permit from the government of Georgia to reside within the territory, or to take an oath of allegiance to the state. Mr. Worcester and Mr. Thompson, being missionaries, were discharged by thecourt, on the alleged ground, that they were agents of the government, having been employed to disburse among the Indians a portion of their annuities. This decision of the court gave great offence to the state authorities; and the governor obtained from the general government a disavowal that the missionaries were its agents. No sooner was this disavowal received, than Mr. Worcester and Ezra Butler were warned to quit the nation, with which order, not complying, they were arrested, tried, and sentenced to four years confinement at hard labor, in the penitentiary of Georgia. Much indignation was manifested throughout the country at this violation of personal rights, superadded to what this course was claimed to be, a complete disregard of the federal compact, and the faith of treaties. The decision of the president, however, sustained Georgia in the ground she had taken, and she proceeded to carry out her policy towards the Cherokees.

The case of the missionaries, however, was, at length, brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision of that court, March 30, 1832, involved the question of jurisdiction over the country of the Cherokees. The claims of Georgia were set aside by this decision, as unconstitutional; and her laws by which the Indians had been deprived of their rights, and the missionaries confined and imprisoned, were pronounced null and void. This decision of the supreme judicial tribunal of the United States was resisted by Georgia, and the missionaries continued in prison. This unpleasant controversy was, at length, ended by a letter addressed, January 8th, 1833, by the missionaries to the governor of Georgia, in which they informed his Excellency, that they had forwarded instructions to their counsel, to prosecute the case no farther. Upon this, January 14th, his Excellency issued his proclamation remitting the farther execution of the sentence, and discharging the missionaries from prison. We shall only add, that on the 23d of May, 1838, a military force of several thousand men, under the command of Gen. Scott, was assembled on the Cherokee territory, for the purpose of removing the nation to the territory assigned them beyond the great river of the west, a bill having passed congress in 1831, authorizing the president to set apart such portions of the public territory, west of the Mississippi, as he should deem necessary for the permanent residence of the Cherokees, and other emigrating tribes. This bill, at the time of its introduction into congress, 22d of February, 1830, gave rise to a long and spirited debate in both houses, during which the whole subject of the relations of the federal government with the Indians was developed. The final vote on it in the house was close, being one hundred and two affirmative, and ninety-seven negative. In the senate, the majority was larger. The passage of this bill, connected with the course taken by the president in relation to the Indians, formed an era in the policy of the United States, respecting the aboriginal tribes.

Another exciting topic agitated in congress, related to the public lands. These lands were acquired by the federal government in two modes. The portion west of the Mississippi, forming much the larger part, is held under the Louisiana treaty, having been acquired by purchase from France. The residue was acquired at the treaty of 1783, the fruits of conquest from the crown of Great Britain. Out of these territories, new states had been formed. Prior to the adoption of the federal constitution, but few sales had been made. In 1800, the acts containing the principal features of the present land system were passed. These have been subsequently modified, and in 1820 cash sales were substituted for sales on credit.

Acting upon the new principle advanced by Georgia, in relation to the sovereignty of the state over all lands within its limits, some of the new states have set up a claim to the property in the soil of all lands, not owned by individuals, as an incident of sovereignty.

In consequence of these claims, and memorials of some of the western legislatures against the existing mode of disposing of the public lands, Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, on the 29th of December, 1829, introduced into the senate the following resolution:—“Resolved, that the committee on public lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of limiting, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands, to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are subject to entry at the minimum price, and also whether the office of surveyor-general may not be abolished, without detriment to the public interest.”

This resolution was immediately and strongly opposed, as a part of a systematic policy for crippling the growth of the west. It was urged that it would serve to prevent emigration to those states, within whose territory these lands lay. The debate to which this resolution gave rise continued for several weeks, during which Messrs. Hayne and Webster made speeches, which will long be remembered for their eloquence, ingenuity and power. Others mingled in the warm and animated discussion, wandering from the subject of the public lands to discuss almost every topic of general interest connected with the politics of the day.

In his message to congress, the President had expressed an opinion against renewing the charter of the United States Bank, which would expire in 1836. The bank had not applied for such renewal, but being pressed on the attention of congress, it was referred to the committee on finance in both houses of congress for examination. On the 30th of April, 1830, Mr. M’Duffie, the chairman of the committee of ways and means, in the house, made a report diametrically opposite to the recommendations of the President. Respecting the first proposition contained in the message, that congress had not constitutional power to incorporate a bank, the committee deemed that question no longer open for discussion. They also came to a different opinion from that contained in the message, respecting the expediency of the measure. The report from the committee on finance in the senate concurred with that of the house in its conclusions, and was equally decisive in its condemnation of the sentiments of the President. The effect produced in the public mind by the message was entirely done away, and the stock of the bank, which had fallen, upon the delivery of the message, from one hundred and twenty-six to one hundred and twenty, rose, after the publication of these reports, to one hundred and twenty-seven, and finally attained the price of one hundred and thirty dollars per share.

In December, 1832, a memorial was presented to congress from the president and directors of the United States Bank for a renewal of its charter. Soon after, a committee was appointed by the house to investigate the proceedings of the bank. A majority of this committee, adopting the views of the Executive, reported against a renewal of the charter, principally on the ground of a violation of its charter by illegal transactions. A counter report was presented by the minority, in the conclusion of which they bore unequivocal testimony to the fidelity of the officers of that institution. On the 10th of June, the question was taken in the senate on a bill to incorporate the bank, which passed that body by a vote of twenty-eight to twenty. On the 3d of July the question was taken in the house, and the charter renewed by a vote of one hundred and seven to eighty-five. On the 10th, the bill was returned by the President with his objections.

Although not unexpected to the country, the veto put upon the bill by the President gave great dissatisfaction to the friends of the bank in every section of the United States. A general disturbance of the currency was predicted as the necessary consequence. “We have arrived at a new epoch,” said one of the advocates of the bank on the floor of the senate: “We are entering on experiments with the government and constitution of the country, hitherto untried and of fearful and appalling aspects.” Another subject of importance introduced in the message respected internal improvements. During the administration of Washington and the elder Adams, no application was made of the public revenue to internal improvements; the government having as many demands upon the treasury, growing out of debts incurred in the Revolution, as could be met. But during the presidency of Mr. Jefferson, the internal improvement policy was begun, by an act passed May 1st, 1802, making appropriations for opening roads in the north-west territory. This was followed by other similar appropriations. During Mr. Madison’s administration, the appropriations were increased, and still further augmented, while Mr. Monroe was in office. On the accession of Mr. Adams, the policy was still pursued; and as he was understood to give a still more liberal construction of the constitution on this subject, more appropriations were made for the above object during his administration than during those of all his predecessors. General Jackson, while holding a seat in the senate of the United States, had voted with the friends of internal improvements. It was therefore anticipated by a numerous class in the United States, and among them were some of his friends, that he would follow out the policy of his predecessors. In his message to congress, however, he first manifested an unwillingness to the exercise of this power by congress. As the session advanced, it became more and more apparent that he was hostile to all appropriations to the above object. And, finally, all doubt was ended by his return of several bills appropriating money for internal improvements, with objections.

A decided majority in congress being in favor of such appropriations, notwithstanding the views of the Executive, several bills were introduced into the house similar to those which the President had rejected, and were passed by both houses by decided majorities. The President and his cabinet thus found themselves compelled to yield to public opinion expressed in congress, and although their determination checked the action of the federal government in relation to internal improvements, still they had surrendered every principle, upon which their opposition to the system could be founded. By these decisive votes in congress, this policy was considered as firmly established, and nothing was required to carry it into effect with moderation and discretion, but the harmonious co-operation between different branches of the government.