Rappel de votre demande:
Format de téléchargement: : Texte
Vues 13 à 13 sur 614
Nombre de pages: 1
Notice complète:
Titre : Annual report of the Bureau of American ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian institution
Auteur : Bureau of American ethnology (Washington, D.C.). Auteur du texte
Éditeur : Government printing office (Washington)
Date d'édition : 1896
Contributeur : Powell, John Wesley (1834-1902). Directeur de publication
Notice du catalogue : http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb37575968z
Notice du catalogue : https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb37575968z/date
Type : texte
Type : publication en série imprimée
Langue : anglais
Format : Nombre total de vues : 40082
Description : 1896
Description : 1896 (N18,PART2)-1897.
Description : Note : Index.
Droits : Consultable en ligne
Droits : Public domain
Identifiant : ark:/12148/bpt6k276283
Source : Bibliothèque nationale de France
Conservation numérique : Bibliothèque nationale de France
Date de mise en ligne : 15/10/2007
Le texte affiché peut comporter un certain nombre d'erreurs. En effet, le mode texte de ce document a été généré de façon automatique par un programme de reconnaissance optique de caractères (OCR). Le taux de reconnaissance estimé pour ce document est de 81%.
quished all claim, not only to the government, but to the "propriety and territorial rights of tlie United States," whose boundaries were fixed in the second article. By this treaty, the powers of government, and the right to soi], which had previously been in Great Britain, passed definitively to thèse states. We had before taken possession of them, by declaring independence; but neither the declaration of independenec, nor the treaty confirming it, could give us more than that which we before possessed, or to which Great Britain was before entitled. It lias never been doubted, that either the United States, or the several states, had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty, subject only to the Indian right of occupa.ncy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that right was vested in that government which might constitutionally exercise it. That this rule has been adopted also by the United States is asserted by the Supreme Court in the same opinion:
The United States, then, have unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by which its civilized inhabitants now hold this conntry. They hold, and assert in themselves, the title by which it was acquired. They maintain, as all others have maintained, that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conqnest; and gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty as the circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. The power now possessed by the Goverument of the United States to grant lands resided, while we were colonies, in the crown or its grantees. Thé validity of the titles given by either bas never been questioned in onr courts. It has been exercised uniformly over territory in possession of tho Indians. Thé existence of this power must negative the existence of any right which may conflict with, and coutrol it. An absolute title to lands can not exist, at the same time, in different persons, or in different governments. An absolute, must be an exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes ail others not compatible with it. All our institutions recognize the absolute title of tho crown, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy, and recognized the absolute title of the crown to extinguish that right. This is incompatible with an absolute and complete title in the Indians.
We will not enter into the coutroversy, whether agriculturists, merchants, and manufacturers, have a right, on abstract principles, to expel hunters from thé territory they possess, or to contraet their limits. Conquest gives a title which thé courts of the conqueror can not deny, whatevcr the private and spéculative opinions of individuals may be, respecting the original justice of the claim which has been snccessfully asserted. The British government, which was then our government, and whose rights liave passed to the United States, asserted a title to ail the lands occupied by Indians within the chartered limits of the British colonies. It asserted also a limited sovereignty over them, and the exclusive right of extinguishing the title which occupaney gave to them. These daims have heen maintained and established as far west as the river Mississippi, by the sword. The title to a vast portion of thé lands we now hold, originates in them. It is not for the courts of this country to question the validity of this title or, to sustain one which is incompatible with it. Althongh we do not mea.11 to engage in the defense of those principles which Europeans have applied to Indian title, they may, we think, find some excuse, if not justification, in tho character and habits of the people whose rights have been wrested from them.
Thé title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The conqueror prescribes its limits. Humanity, howipver, acting on public opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the eonquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall rema,in as eligil)le as is compatible with the objects of the conquest. Most usually they are incorporated with the victorious nation and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are connected. The new and old members of the society mingle with each other; the distinction between them is gradually lost, and they make one people. Wherc this incorporation is practicable,