whole subject. Another motion was made to reconsider the reduction of the salt duty, and when the motion had been carried by a vote of 102 to 97, the amendment was rejected by a majority of 4 (102 to 98).* To the bill itself there was little objection and it was passed on May 13 by a vote of 127 to 40, the opposition coming chiefly from the South. The Senate amended and passed it on May 18 (28 to 14) and on May 28 the President approved it. Save for the provisions relating to iron above-mentioned, it made no change in the tariff and was purely an administrative measure.‡

Nevertheless some noteworthy tariff legislation was made during this session. The duty on tea was reduced 50 per cent. in most cases and in some more than that; and the duty on coffee was reduced from 5 cents to 2 cents, but after 1831 it was to be 1 cent a pound. Cocoa was reduced from 2 cents to 1 cent a pound. There was as little opposition to these measures as there was to an act reducing the duty on molasses from 10 cents to 5 cents per gallon, but there was a long wrangle over the attempts to reduce the salt duty. On May 18 the Com

Register of Debates, vol. vi., pt. ii., pp. 966976; Benton, Abridgment, vol. xi., pp. 73-87. Register of Debates, vol. vi., pt. ii., p. 987. Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., p. 364; Bishop, History of Manufactures, vol. ii., pp. 342

343.

For the debate in the Senate, see Register of Debates, vol. vi., pt. i., pp. 428-432; Benton, Abridgment, vol. x., pp. 561-566; in the House, Register, pt. ii., pp. 803-807; for text, Register, pt. ii., app., p. xxiii.

361

mittee of Ways and Means brought in a bill to reduce the salt duty from 20 cents per bushel of 56 pounds to 15 cents during 1831, and after that to 10 cents. After a motion to reject the bill had been defeated on May 19* by a vote of 103 to 85, the bill was passed on May 27 by a vote of 105 to 83† and sent to the Senate, where in less than 24 hours after its receipt it was passed by a vote of 24 to 15.‡

In the meantime that portion of the President's message relating to the banks had been referred to the Committee of Ways and Means. As already stated, Jackson's movement in this respect had come rather as a surprise, since the charter of the bank still had seven years to run and another application had been made for its renewal. It was difficult to perceive why Congress should act at this time, but, as the President had spoken of it in his message, the supporters of the Administration could not well pass over the subject in silence. Accordingly, on April 13, 1830, the Committee of Ways and Means made an elaborate report through McDuffie, their chairman, taking ground against the President, claiming that the bank had faithfully performed its duties, that it was essential to the management of the National finances, etc.||

Register of Debates, p. 1049.
Ibid, p. 1139.

Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. i., pp.

364-365.

Niles' Register, vol. xxxviii., pp. 183-200; House Report, 358; Register of Debates, vol. vi., pt. ii., app., pp. 104–133.

362

Jackson had suggested a Government National Bank, to be furnished with capital from the Treasury, but the report declared that it could hardly furnish a currency without branches; whilst with branches it would be still more objectionable, as it invested the Federal government with patronage of the most extensive influence, and embracing the control of all the bank accommodations to the standing amount of $50,000,000. Such a control would introduce more corruption in the Government than all the patronage now belonging to it. It was a desperate official experiment without parallel in the history of the world." The points in favor of the expediency of the bank constituted practically a currency argument. The committee stated that the dispute was not between paper and metallic currency, but between a National paper currency and a local paper currency. Under the Constitution, Congress could not forbid the issue of paper money by State banks. Hence the local bank notes would circulate, and it was not worth while to discuss the superior advantage of a specie currency. But, the committee asked, would it not be better to have a staple currency which by virtue of its uniformity of value would prevent local bank-notes from circulating far from the place of is

sue? The committee was convinced that the United States Bank by its notes did actually furnish such a circulating medium, more satisfactory even than specie. Again, the bank had punctually observed its obligation to transfer free of expense the funds of the Government to any point desired.* On May 10 Potter, of North Carolina, introduced resolutions against paper money and the Bank, and against the renewal of the charter, but these were laid on the table by a vote of 89 to 66. On May 26 Wayne, of Georgia, introduced resolutions requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a variety of information about the conduct and business of the Bank, but on the 29th these were disagreed to by a vote of 95 to 67. In the Senate, on March 29, Smith, of Maryland, on behalf of the Committee on Finance, submitted a report taking issue with the suggestions of the President and protesting against any change in the currency.|| The matter was then dropped for some time.§

* Dewey, Financial History, pp. 200–201. † Register of Debates, vol. vi., pt. ii., pp. 921

922.

Sumner, Life of Jackson, p. 247.

|| Senate Report, 104; Niles' Register, vol. xxxviii., p. 126; Register of Debates, vol. vi., pt. ii., app., pp. 98-104.

§ See also Bolles, Financial History of the United States, vol. ii., pp. 317-358; Memoirs of J. Q. Adams, vols. viii.-ix., passim.

363

Meanwhile another important problem had come up before the Administration for solution. In 1828 Georgia had extended her laws over the Cherokee lands, and in the last days of Adams' term a delegation from the Cherokee nation arrived in Washington to make an appeal to the outgoing President. In addition to the complaint that Georgia had spread her laws over the Cherokee lands, the Indians contended that the State had decreed all laws and usages in force in the Indian country to be null and void after June 1, 1830, with the reIsult that no Indian or descendant of an Indian could testify in a suit to which a white man was a party unless the latter lived with the Indian tribes. Hence the recent act of Georgia was usurpation of power on her part. It was too late for President Adams to act, and not until Secretary of War Eaton, of the succeeding administration, had been in office a month was the complaint answered. On April 18, 1829, the Secretary replied that the Indians had been suffered to dwell on the land because of compacts be

VOL. VI-24

tween the States and the Indians, but that this was no ground to deny the right of the State to exercise its sovereignty. In 1802, when Georgia assumed her present limits and ceded her Western territory, the title of the Indians to the lands within the boundaries of Georgia was to be extinguished by the United States as soon as it could be peaceably done and on as reasonable terms as possible. Georgia did not ask that the military force of the Union be employed to drive the Indians away, but simply that the soil be acquired by peaceable means. The Indians had tried the patience of Georgia by establishing an independent government without that State's consent, and it therefore became necessary to to extend the Georgia laws over the entire country. This she had a right to do without the authority of the National government, for it was well established that the latter would never use force to prevent any State from exercising those powers which belonged to her as a sovereign, and interference between Georgia and the Indians was not

364

within the range of powers granted by the State to the Federal government. The Secretary said that there was but one remedy removal beyond the Mississippi. So long as the Indians remained in Georgia, they must yield to her laws, but if they moved as stated, they would come under Government protection. Much the same advice was given to the Creeks, and it was apparent that the Administration would follow a policy of transferring the Indians to the far West, in the meanwhile leaving them under the control of the States in which they dwelt.*

The Cherokee chiefs took steps to prevent their people from moving, even voluntarily, by ordering that those enrolling for migration to Arkansas should be deprived of citizenship and allowed fifteen days in which to quit the territory; that a heavy fine and whipping should be the punishment for any Indian who sold his improvements to an emigrant in order that they might be valued by an agent of the United States; and by ordaining that the death penalty should be inflicted on any who were convicted. of entering into a treaty with the United States to sell a part of the National land without the consent of the tribal council.t Governor Forsyth, in his message of November 4, 1828, said the State should no longer delay

Niles' Register, vol. xxxvi., pp. 258-259. See also MacDonald, Jacksonian Democracy, pp. 170171.

Niles' Register, vol. xxxvii., p. 94.

the extension of her laws over the Cherokee territory.* The legislature responded by seizing the Cherokee country, cutting it into pieces which were annexed to her western counties, and declaring the ordinances of the Cherokees to be null and void; by spreading her own laws over the territory; by forbidding migration and the sale of land under penalty of imprisonment for a long term. † The law was to go into effect on June 1, 1830. In 1829 Alabama and, in 1830, Mississippi followed the example set by Georgia, splitting up the Indian territory within their boundaries and bringing it under their State laws.‡

The Cherokees appealed to the President, public sympathy was aroused in the North and East, and resolutions and petitions were sent to Congress calling for action by that body. A bill was introduced in the Senate on April 6, 1830, authorizing the President to select a tract of land west of the Mississippi, but not within the limits of any State or organized territory, which should be appropriated to the use of such Indian tribes as might be willing to move there, and an appropriation of $500,000 was suggested for carrying these provisions into effect. The opponents of the measure argued that, the purpose of the bill being unjust to the Indians and a stain upon the country's honor,

Ibid, vol. xxxv., p. 222.

Law of December 19, 1829; ibid, vol. xxxviii., pp. 54-56.

Ibid, p. 73; Sumner, Life of Jackson, p. 180; Schouler, United States, vol. iii., p. 482.

the Government must either resist the imperious demands of Georgia or abandon its treaties and laws. The advocates of the measure claimed that there were scarcely any new and no radical provisions in the bill, for the Indians themselves had begun the migration and the policy had been approved by the Government for many years. Arguments of this nature were passed back and forth until April 24, when the resolution was passed in the Senate by a vote of 28 to 19 and was sent to the House.* That body amended and passed it on May 26 by a vote of 103 to 97. The Senate concurred in the amendments on May 26, four days later Congress adjourned, and on June 1 the laws of Georgia went into force in the Cherokee country.||

Meanwhile, during the summer of 1829, gold had been discovered in the northeastern part of the State on land owned by the Cherokees. Gold seekers rushed to the region, and by the summer of 1830 it was reported that 3,000 men were digging at the mines.§ Congress had passed an act forbid

For the debate in the Senate see Register of Debates, vol. vi., pt. i., pp. 305, 307, 309–320, 325-339, 343-357, 359-367, 374-377, 380-383; Benton, Abridgment, vol. x., pp. 519-526, 532535, 538-541, 544-546.

Register of Debates, vol. vi., pt. ii., pp. 9931120, 1122-1136; Benton, Abridgment, vol. xi., pp. 94-105.

‡ Register of Debates, vol. vi., pt. i., p. 456.

|| McMaster, vol. vi., pp. 42-45. For Governor Gilmer's proclamation see Niles' Register, vol. Xxxviii., pp. 328-329. For text of bill see United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. iv., p. 411.

§ Phillips, Georgia and State Rights, p. 72.

365

ding anyone to settle or trade in the Indian territory without a license from the National Government, and as the gold seekers were illegally intruding, nine of them were seized by United States authorities and in June of 1830 were brought before Judge A. S. Clayton, of Georgia.* They were promptly discharged and the judge complained to the governor of the action of the Federal authorities. He accounted it a disgrace that citizens of the State should be guarded by troops and paraded through the streets for no other crime than trading on the soil of their own State, and indignantly asserted that such an exercise of power by the general government within the jurisdiction of the State was, to say the least, humiliating. He therefore urged that the governor request the President to withdraw the Federal troops, and in due time this was done. The duty of driving out the intruders and preserving order in the Indian country now fell upon Georgia, and a special session of the legislature was called to enact laws with that object in view.‡ A law was passed providing that the Cherokee council or legislative body could not meet unless to cede land, nor could a Cherokee judge hold a court under penalty of imprisonment for four years. Any white man found in

Niles' Register, vol. xxxviii., p. 356.

Regarding this see also Clayton's charge to the grand jury, in Niles' Register, xxxix., pp. 99-101.

The proclamation is in Niles' Register, vol. xxxix., p. 106.