INDIAN TREATIES.

south as the Delaware hay. His royal highness transferred New Jersey to lord Berkeley and sir George Carteret .

In 1663, the crown granted to lord Clarendon and others, the countrylying between the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude and the river St.Mathes; and, in 1666, the proprietors obtained from the crown a newcharter, granting to them that province in the king’s dominions in NorthAmerica which lies from thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitudeto the twenty-ninth degree, and from the Atlantic ocean to the South sea.Thus has our whole country been granted by the crown while in theoccupation of the Indians. These grants purport to convey the soil aswell as the right of dominion to the grantees. In those governmentswhich were denominated royal, where the right to the soil was not vestedin individuals, but remained in the crown, or was vested in the colonialgovernment, the king claimed and exercised the right of granting lands,and of dismembering the government at his will. The grants made outof the two original colonies, after the resumption of their charters by thecrown, are examples of this. The governments of New England, NewYork, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland , and a part of Carolina, werethus Created. In all of them, the soil, at the time the grants were made,was occupied by the Indians. Yet almost every title within those govern-ments is dependent on these grants. In some instances, the soil was con-veyed by the crown unaccompanied by the powers of government, as inthe case of the northern neck of Virginia . It has never been objected tothis, or to any other similar grant, that the title as well as possession wasin the Indians when it was made, and that it passed nothing on thataccount.

These various patents cannot be considered as nullities; nor can theybe limited to a mere grant of the powers of government. A charter in-tended to convey political power only, would never contain words expresslygranting the land, the soil and the waters. Some of them purport to con-vey the soil alone ; and in those cases in which the powers of government,as well as the soil, are conveyed to individuals, the crown has alwaysacknowledged itself to be bound by the grant. Though the power todismember regal governments was asserted and exercised, the power todismember proprietary governments was not claimed; and, in someinstances, even after the powers of government were revested in the crown,the title of the proprietors to the soil was respected.

Charles II. was extremely anxious to acquire the property of Maine ,but the grantees sold it to Massachusetts , and he did not venture to contestthe right of that colony to the soil. The Carolinas were originally pro-prietary governments. In 1721 a revolution was effected by the people,who shook off their obedience to the proprietors, and declared their de-pendence immediately on the crown. The king, however, purchased thetitle of those who were disposed to sell. One of them, lord Carteret,surrendered his interest in the government, but retained his title to thesoil. That title was respected till the revolution, when it was forfeitedby the laws of war.

Further proofs of the extent to which this principle has been recognised,will be found in the history of the wars, negotiations and treaties, whichthe different nations, claiming territory in America , have carried on, andheld with each other.

The contests between the cabinets of Versailles and Madrid, respectingthe territory on the northern coast of the gulf of Mexico , were fierce andbloody: and continued, until the establishment of a Bourbon on thethrone of Spain produced such amicable dispositions in the two crowns,as to suspend or terminate them.

Between France and Great Britain , whose discoveries as well as settle-ments were nearly contemporaneous, contests for the country actuallycovered by the Indians, began as soon as their settlements approached