The History of Illinois, from Its First Discovery and Settlement to the Present Time

exclusive power to extinguish that right, was vested in the Government, which might constitutionally exercise it.

The United States have also, in several instances, acceded to the broad rule by which its civilized inhabitants hold this country; and have maintained, "that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title to occupancy, either by purchase or conquest; and gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty, as the circumstances of the people will allow them to exercise ;" and having since purchased of the several Indian tribes, the whole State of Illinois, and received from the States of New-York, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Connecticut, a release of all their interests under patents from the crown of England, the title seems apparently of record, more satisfactory than almost any state or nation can exhibit of its domain.

By the treaty of Greenville, made and entered into on the 3rd of August, 1795, between General Wayne in behalf of the United States, and the sachems, chiefs, and warriors of the Wyandots, Delawares, Shawnees, Ottawas, Chippeways, Pottawatomies, Miamies, Eel Rivers, Weas, Kickapoos, Piankeshaws, and Kaskaskias, "one piece of land, six miles square at the mouth of the Chicago river, emptying into the southwest end of Lake Michigan, where a fort formerly stood;" one other piece, twelve miles square, at the mouth of the Illinois river; and one other piece, including the old fort at Peoria, near the south end of the Illinois lake on Illinois river, were, among other lands, ceded to the United States.

On the 7th of June, 1803, further cessions were made, by a treaty executed by the Indians at Fort Wayne, where General Harrison acted as commissioner on the part of the United States. Other cessions were afterward made, until the Indian title has become wholly extinguished within the limits of Illinois.

In relation to the morality of such cessions, nothing perhaps need here be said. The treaties which led to these cessions, were conducted, in all probability, as fairly, and probably more so, than any treaties hitherto made between civilized and savage men, in any age or any part of the world. The Indians in Illinois, having first expelled the prior occupants, overran, rather than inhabited, the country they claimed. At no period in its history, did the native population equal its number of square miles. One-half, or one-third of that number, unquestionably exceeds the truth. And, however strange it may seem, notwithstanding its occupation by them for centuries, a single year after their departure has, in every instance, eradicated (with the exception of a few tumuli or tombs,) all traces of their existence. It can hardly be supposed, then, that an all-wise Creator, who designed this world for the benefit of the human race, intended that its fairest portions should have been reserved for a few solitary hunters. Their occupation was war; their subsistence obtained from the forest. "To leave them in possession of the country, was to leave the country a wilderness;" to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible. "The Americans were under the necessity, therefore,

of abandoning the country," and exposing themselves and their families to the perpetual hazard of being massacred, or of enforcing their rights by the sword. "Wars ensued, in which the whites were not, as some pretend, always the aggressors." European policy, numbers and skill, of course prevailed; and as the white population advanced, the Indians receded the country in the neighborhood of the former became unfit for them-the game fled into thicker and more unbroken forests, and the Indians followed." Attempts to civilize and christianize the latter, have frequently been made, in sincerity and zeal, but mostly in vain. Our ancestors, who landed on Plymouth rock, labored unquestionably for their good. Purer and better men than Elliot, or Brainard, have never existed. Many of the Jesuit missionaries, who resorted thither, in character and motives, were irreproachable. Still, nothing, or scarcely nothing, was effected by their exertions. That wrongs, aggravated wrongs, at times have been done the savage, we admit. We admit, also, that attempts for their reformation have, at times, injudiciously been conducted. But that our Government have, in any instance, sought to overwhelm them with undeserved ruin, we deny; and the history of our country bears out the assertion.

The ordinance of 1787, for the government of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, contains the following provision:

"The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians-their lands and roperty shall never be taken from them without their consent-and in their property, rights and liberty, they never shall be invaded, or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them."

This ordinance, it will be recollected, was passed before our present Constitution was adopted. It is true, that foreign emissaries and domestic traitors, and sometimes the cupidity of white men, have stimulated the savage to deeds of vengeance, and those deeds have recoiled on their own guilty heads. The march, however, of civilization, has been onward; and the conduct of the American nation, and ordinarily of the American people, has been mild and merciful. That sickly humanity, therefore, which attempts to justify the Indian massacre, requires another and different theatre for its successful exhibition.

Without entering into the controversy, whether agriculturists, merchants and manufacturers, have a right, on abstract principles, to expel hunters from the territory they possess, or to contract their limits, we observe, says Chief Justice Marshall, "that conquest gives a title, which the courts of the conquered cannot deny." The British government was at one time our government. Their rights have passed to the United States. They asserted a title to all 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 occupancy gave them. These claims were maintained and estab

lished as far west as the Mississippi, by the sword. The title to a vast portion of the United States, originated in them; and it is not for courts in this country to question the validity of this title, or to sustain one incompatible with it.

"However extravagant the pretensions of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into a conquest may appear, if the principle has been asserted in the first instance; if a country has been acquired and held under it; if the property of the great mass of the community originates in it; it becomes the law of the land, and cannot be questioned. "In England all vacant lands are vested in the crown, as representing the nation. In this country, all vacant lands are vested in the United States. In England, the title of the crown, whatever it might be, could be acquired, only by a conveyance from the crown. If an individual then purchased of the Indians, he acquired their title only. The purchaser incorporates himself with them, so far as respects the property purchased, and held their title under their protection, and subject to their laws. If they annul the grant, (and convey to a person having authority to purchase,) we know of no tribunal which can revise or set aside the proceeding. We know of no principle which can distinguish this case from a grant made by a native Indian, authorizing him to hold a particular tract of land in severalty.

"The proclamation of the king, above referred to, forbade all British subjects from making any purchase, or settlement whatever, or taking possession of the lands.' It was contended, however, on the authority of Campbell against Hall, (Cowper's Reports,) that the king had transcended his constitutional power, and therefore the proclamation was a nullity. That since the expulsion of the Stuart family from the throne, such authority had never been recognized. It would seem, however, that the power of granting, or refusing to grant, vacant lands, and of restraining encroachments on the Indians, has always been asserted and admitted; has never been denied ; and as it respects lands in this country, has always been sustained by our courts. The grant of lands to the crown, for the use of individuals, as in this case, seems also to admit the royal assent necessary to its validity. The opinion, therefore, given by York and Pratt, one of them the attorney, and the other the solicitor-general of England, notwithstanding its great authority, is not only against the uniform practice of the crown, and the opinions given by its great law officers, but repugnant also to our practice, since we have been a nation. The court, therefore, are decidedly of opinion that the plaintiffs have not exhibited a title which can be sustained; and that there is no error in the judgment which has been rendered in the district court of Illinois."

The decision being final, all claims under the Indian deeds before mentioned, were immediately abandoned, and a patent from the United States regarded by the whole community as perfectly conclusive.

The relation which now exists (however unpleasant) between the civilized and the savage man, is perfectly natural. When the former first landed

on the American Continent, they were received by the savage with uniform kindness; that kindness was at first reciprocal. The European, how. ever, required lands for culture. Those lands were bought and paid for; all were satisfied—and all was harmony; difficulties at length arose, and having no common umpire for their adjustment, recourse was had to arms. The industry and persevering valor, however, of the white man, bore everything before it. The forests fell, the game retired, the savage followed, and the country, deprived of all that was valuable in the eyes of the latter, became to them of but little use. Other cessions were made, and the same process was repeated, till the savage saw, and felt, his danger. He sought next to repossess himself of the lands he had granted; was met on the threshold by the European, in arms; and at last driven from river to river, and from forest to forest, until an abiding place has scarcely been left. Such, however, was, and still is, nature's law. Mind governs matter, as sure as the sparks fly upward.

The question has often been asked, whether our public lands have been a source of profit, or of loss to the nation? The answer to the inquiry depends upon the view taken of the subject by the inquirer.

When cession after cession was made by the several States, and by the numerous Indian tribes within our limits, of those lands to the nation, and the lands thus ceded were pledged in payment of our public debt, they were supposed, and believed by many, adequate to the purpose. Experience, however, soon proved its fallacy. Regarding Government merely as a land speculator, and charging the fifteen million dollars paid for Louisiana, the five millions paid for Florida, the expenses of the general land office, appropriations for surveying, commissions to registers and receivers, moneys paid for extinguishing Indian titles, annuities to Indians, the expenses paid for their removal, and interest on the above several items, and crediting all the money received at public and private sales, a balance (though not large,) would, probably, be found in favor of the public lands. But if to this, the expenses attending Indian treaties, the moneys expended in the prosecution and defence of Indian wars, which constitute an equitable charge upon the fund, from Harman's fatal expedition down to the Black Hawk, including also the Creek, the Cherokee, Seminole, and lastly, the Florida war, the balance would be several millions against the public lands; after deducting, too, such as were given for military bounties, for schools and seminaries, and for canals, and internal improvements. So far then from con.ributing to sustain the credit of the nation, and adding to its resources, they have not, as yet, contributed a shilling toward either.*

The above facts, however, illustrate the following position: That a landed estate is the very worst which a Government can possess; that

* A committee on public lands, in Congress, May 18th, 1832, estimated their cost at $48,077,551 40, including interest and charges, and the receipts at $37,272,713,31, leaving a balance due the Government of $10,804,838,09. Several large errors, however, crept into this statement, and its accuracy cannot be depended upon. The receipts since have also been large.

lands are of a nature more proper for private management, than for public administration; better fitted for the care of a frugal land-agent than of an officer in the State; that whenever any property is transferred from hands which are not fit to hold it, to hands that are, the buyer and seller are mutually benefitted by the exchange.

When these lands were acquired by the United States, many supposed they would pay off the public debt immediately; defray the ordinary expenses of Government, and furnish a large surplus for distribution. Their subsequent history, however, presents to us, and to the world, another instructive lesson on the utility of public lands to a country, and the fallacy of large calculations. Fifty years of practical experience has exhibited a negative quantity. Had their sale been continued much longer upon credit, a severance of the Union would unquestionably have followed.

Until 1829, their minimum price was two dollars per acre; large tracts were sold to individuals at that rate on credit, and a portion only of the purchase money having been paid on the execution of the contract, the consequence was, an immense accumulation of debt to the United States, annual relief laws, and great danger to our country and its institutions. Fortunately, however, the whole system was afterward changed. Lands were sold in small parcels, to suit the purchaser, at reduced prices, (one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre,) and for cash; the wisdom of this measure was immediately apparent. Speculation in wild lands had become unprofitable; many who indulged in dreams of principalities, woke up and found themselves without a home. The expenses incurred in their management; the infidelity, sometimes, of agents; and the consuming moth of taxation, devoured frequently their available means, and delivered over the residue to the sheriff or the marshal.

We have already remarked, that the State of Illinois contains