Virginia Argus

VIRGINIA ARGUS.

RICHMOND:

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1804.

VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE.

HOUSE OF DELEGATES.

Tuesday, Dec. 11, 1804.

Speech of Mr. Smyth (of Wythe,) in committee of the whole on the memorial of George Jackson, and the petition of sundry inhabitants of Harrison, Monongalia, Ohio, Randolph and Wood, praying aid to defend a suit brought by the Indiana Company in the Federal Circuit Court.

Mr. CHAIRMAN,

I consider this case as one of great importance, requiring the most particular attention of this committee.

To enable those gentlemen, who owing to their other engagements, have had no leisure to examine this question, to form an opinion on it, I will beg leave to explain the case briefly.

1. I will first take a view of the titles of the people residing within the Indiana territory, held under the commonwealth.

The first document of importance to support the titles of the people, is the deed made in July, 1744, at Lancaster, by the chiefs of the Six Nations. I hold that deed to have extinguished completely, the Indian title, and to have left the Indians nothing, within the limits of Virginia, to convey by a subsequent deed: For here were all the essentials of a good contract.

A party capable to sell—a party capable to purchase—a good consideration—and an observance of legal forms.

There was a party capable to sell. It is true the full powers of the twenty six chiefs are not recited, nor do they appear. But it is recited that LYE and BEVERLY were deputed by the governor of Virginia to treat with the Indians. That the Indians met them at Lancaster, to the number of twenty six chiefs, and received £400 for their nation. These are circumstances sufficient to prove, at this distance of time, the authority of the representatives of a savage tribe.

To this contract there is also, a party capable to purchase. The Governor of Virginia represented the sovereign executive however in Virginia.

His commissioners made this purchase.

He had a right to buy within the chartered limits of the colony. The governor purchased by his commissioners. The King purchased by his governor. So that here was a sale by the Six Nations. A purchase by the British King.

There was also, a good consideration.

The title of the Six Nations to any lands in Virginia, was not such as the law of nations recognises; they having no occupation of the lands. The writers on this subject, say that the Europeans had a right to possess those lands through which the Indians only wandered, but which they did not cultivate. The government of Virginia did not acknowledge the right of the Six Nations: but for the sake of harmony, paid them £400 to relinquish their ill-founded claim, and acknowledge that of the KING, founded on the law of nations. £400 was therefore a sufficient consideration for a relinquishment of a claim, thus weak and feeble.

That there was a deed executed by 26 chiefs, that it was recorded, are facts which the records prove, and they require no comment.

If this sale, purchase, and conveyance, thus fairly made, did not transfer the Indian title to the crown; I know not what kind of sale, purchase, and conveyance, would have had that effect.

I contend, therefore, that the title of the crown to this territory from 1744 to 1776 was good; and that the title of the commonwealth after 1776, was also good. It will follow that the grants by the present and former government for lands within that territory, are valid, and the people holding under them secure.

2. I will next consider the claim of the Indiana company.

If the conveyance of 1744 was good, that of 1768 must be void: because the Six Nations had nothing left to convey.

It is also to be remarked, that by a document on your table, it appears, that before 1753, the territory was partially settled under authority of Virginia; conquered by the French and Indians in 1753, re-conquered from them in 1758, and in 1768, when Trent made his purchase, was settled by Virginians, many surveys made, and grants issued under authority of Virginia. To talk of an Indian title to such a European settlement, is preposterous.

If the Indiana company can oust the grantees of the commonwealth, they can oust the grantees of Dunmore; can oust those officers and soldiers whose courage conquered the country from the Indians and the French.

The second conveyance probably did not proceed from the bad faith of the Indians. A tract of country about Fort Pitt, being claimed both by Virginia and Pennsylvania—no doubt it was represented to the Indians that by the deed of 1744 for lands within Virginia's limits, the territory in question did not pass, and so the Indians agreed to convey it, although sold and conveyed by their fathers? It appears the territory was regarded as part of Pennsylvania, the deed having been proved and recorded in Pennsylvania.

But let us reason a moment upon the supposition that by the deed of '44 nothing passed, and that the Indians in 1768 had a right to convey. Let us examine the legal operation of the deed then made.