The bill claims for the Cherokee Nation the benefit of the constitutional provision that treaties are the supreme law of the land and that all judges are bound by it; the declaration of the Constitution that no State may enact a law In the exercise of my practice of expressing an opinion on all constitutional matters, I must express my views on the matter. I have no qualms about the moral of the matter; I am called upon to consider this a legal matter. In order to request legal protection from the Court of Justice, it is not sufficient to establish the existence of damage or a cause thereof. In addition to the plea relied on, the applicant must include in this description the parties who, under the Constitution, are the only ones entitled to apply to the Court. But this argument does not stand the test of principle. For the jurisdiction of a country can be exercised over its citizens wherever they are, in the law of their allegiance, as was the case with the punishment of offenses against Indians. And under the Constitution and the Treaty of Hopewell, the power of Congress extends to regulating their trade, necessarily within their borders. However, this cannot penalise the exercise of a competence which goes beyond the policy of the acts themselves, which are punishable in all their provisions. The issue, which involved the citizenship of a Oneida Indian, was considered by the New York Supreme Court in Jackson vs. Goodel, 20 Johns. 193. The plaintiff`s owner was the son of an Oneida Indian who, as an officer of the Revolutionary War, had received a certificate for the land in question; and although the Supreme Court ruled in the circumstances of the case that he was a citizen, the Chief Justice noted Spencer; we do not mean that the condition of the Indian tribes (referring to the Six Nations) in ancient and distant times was that of subjects or citizens of the state; Their condition gradually changed until they lost all attributes of sovereignty and were completely dependent and subservient to our government.
But the case that was brought before the Court of Errors, Chancellor Kent, in a very detailed and competent statement on this issue, came to a different conclusion on Indian citizenship, even in the strong circumstances of this case. To have no laws or government beyond what is required in a wild state. The distinction is clearly made in the section that gives Congress the power to regulate trade between the United States and foreign nations and Indian tribes. The wording of the Constitution clause giving Congress the power to regulate commerce is intended to make an argument against treating the Cherokees as a foreign nation. The section reads: “To regulate trade with foreign nations and between the various states and with Indian tribes.” Constitution, art. 1, § 8. The argument is that if Indian tribes are foreign nations, they would have been admitted without being specifically named, and being called so matters something different from the previous term “foreign nations.” The territory of the Delaware Nation lay within the borders of the states of New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Yet we do not hear of any claims of jurisdiction made by these states over these Indians.
This treaty, both in substance and in substance, claims to be an agreement with an independent sovereign power. They even claim to be articles of Confederation. It contains provisions relating to peace and war and to allow American troops to cross the country of the Delaware Nation. that no party in its respective States protects servants, slaves or criminals, refugees of another; But of course and deliver. Trade is regulated between the parties. And the sixth article shows the early promise of the United States to protect the Indians in their possession from any claims or encroachments by the states. He states that the enemies of the United States tried to impress the Indians in general by making them believe that the states intended to exterminate the Indians and take possession of their lands in order to avoid such false insinuations; The United States is committed to securing to the aforementioned Delaware Nation and its heirs all of its territorial rights as fully and completely as possible, as limited by previous treaties. And there are even plans to invite other tribes to join the Confederacy; and to form a State; and be represented in Congress; if it is conducive to mutual interest. All these provisions are totally incompatible with the idea that these Indians are under the jurisdiction of the states; although their chartered borders may extend beyond them. Since the reasons for the Court`s judgment in its impact on the peace of the country and the applicants` situation seem to me to be more important than the judgment itself, and since I am alone on an issue of crucial importance to both, I must fully explain my reasons. The opinion of this court is in itself of high authority, and the judge who gives it has as strongly moral support for public opinion as any human court can convey.
The judge, who is the only one who disagrees decisively on questions of the infinite scope of this case, must perish under the continuous and unequal struggle if he cannot establish himself by a firm grip on the constitution and laws of the land. Presumably he is wrong until he proves he is right. I am not even afraid of this terrifying issue and consider it the only issue I will ever consider regarding the right of Indians to sue in federal courts until I am convinced of my error in my current beliefs. As it was one of the first treaties with the Indians, its provisions can serve to show the light in which the Indian nations were seen by Congress that day. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Cherokee Nation sought an injunction against Georgian laws that deprive them of their rights within their borders, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on the merits. He ruled that he had no initial jurisdiction over the matter because the Cherokees were a dependent nation, with a relationship with the United States as that of a “ward of their guardian,” as Chief Justice Marshall stated. [1] 1. Is the Cherokee Indian Nation a party with jurisdiction to bring an action in this court?2. Are there enough arguments in the invoice to justify this tribunal granting a remedy? Samuel Worcester, a missionary, defied Georgia by peaceful means to protest the state`s treatment of Cherokee lands.