« PreviousContinue »
§ 6. The principle, then, that discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made, against all other European governments, being once established, it followed almost as a matter of course, that every government within the limits of its discoveries excluded all other persons from any right to acquire the soil by any grant whatsoever from the natives. No nation would suffer either its own subjects or those of any other nation to set up or vindicate any such title. It was deemed a right exclusively belonging to the government in its sovereign capacity to extinguish the Indian title, and to perfect its own dominion over the soil, and dispose of it according to its own good pleasure.
§ 7. It may be asked, what was the effect of this principle of discovery in respect to the rights of the natives themselves. In the view of the Europeans it created a peculiar relation between themselves and the aboriginal inhabitants. The latter were admitted to possess a present right of occupancy, or use in the soil, which was subordinate to the ultimate dominion of the discoverer. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion. In a certain sense they were permitted to exercise rights of sovereignty over it. They might sell or transfer it to the sovereign, who discovered it; but they were denied the authority to dispose of it to any other persons; and until such a sale or transfer, they were generally permitted to occupy it as sovereigns de facto. But notwithstanding this occupancy, the European discoverers claimed and exercised the right to grant the soil, while yet in possession of the natives, subject however to their right of occupancy; and the title so granted was universally admitted to convey a sufficient title in the soil to the grantees in perfect dominion, or, as it is sometimes expressed in treatises of public law, it was a transfer of plenum et utile dominium.
$ 8. This subject was discussed at great length in the celebrated case of Johnson v. M Intosh; and one cannot do better than transcribe from the pages of that report a summary of the historical confirmations adduced in support of these principles, which is more clear and exact than has ever been before in print.
$ 9. “The history of America, (says Mr. Chief Justice Marshall,
1 Chalmers, Annals, 676, 677; 1 Doug. Summ. 213,
in delivering the opinion of the Court,) 1 from its discovery to the present day, proves, we think, the universal recognition of these principles.
“Spain did not rest her title solely on the grant of the Pope. Her discussions respecting boundary, with France, with Great Britain, and with the United States, all show that she placed it on the rights given by discovery. Portugal sustained her claim to the Brazils by the same title. § 10.
France, also, founded her title to the vast territories she claimed in America on discovery. However conciliatory her conduct to the natives may have been, she still asserted her right of dominion over a great extent of country not actually settled by Frenchmen, and her exclusive right to acquire and dispose of the soil, which remained in the occupation of Indians. Her monarch claimed all Canada and Acadie, as colonies of France, at a time when the French population was very inconsiderable, and the Indians occupied almost the whole country. He also claimed Louisiana, comprehending the immense territories watered by the Mississippi, and the rivers which empty into it, by the title of discovery. The letters-patent granted to the Sieur Demonts, in 1603, constitute him Lieutenant-General, and the representative of the king in Acadie, which is described as stretching from the 40th to the 46th degree of north latitude, with authority to extend the power of the French over that country and its inhabitants, to give laws to the people, to treat with the natives, and enforce the observance of treaties, and to parcel out and give title to lands, according to his own judgment.
$11. “ The states of Holland also made acquisitions in America, and sustained their right on the common principle adopted by all Europe. They allege, as we are told by Smith, in his History of New York, that Henry Hudson, who sailed, as they say, under the orders of their East India Company, discovered the country from the Delaware to the Hudson, up which he sailed to the 43d degree of north latitude; and this country they claimed under the title acquired by this voyage. Their first object was commercial, as
18 Wheat. 543. See also Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Peters's R. 515 ; 4 Jefferson's Corresp. 478; Mackintosh's History of Ethical Philosophy, (Phila. 1832,) 50; Johnson v. M Intosh, 8 Wheat. R. 574 – 588. [Wheat. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 4, § 5; Jackson v. Wood, 7 Johns. 290; Clark v. Williams, 19 Pick. 499; Godfrey v. Beardsley, 2 McLean, 412; Coleman v. Doe, 4 S. & M. 40; Jones v. Erans, 5 Yerg. 323; Rowland v. Ladiga, 9 Port. 488; Sparkman v. Porter, 1 Paine, 457.]
appears by a grant made to a company of merchants in 1614; but in 1621, the States-General made, as we are told by Mr. Smith, a grant of the country to the West India Company, by the name of New Netherlands. The claim of the Dutch was always contested by the English ; not because they questioned the title given by discovery, but because they insisted on being themselves the rightful claimants under that title. Their pretensions were finally decided by the sword.
$ 12. “No one of the powers of Europe gave its full assent to this principle more unequivocally than England. The documents upon this subject are ample and complete. So early as the year 1496, her monarch granted a commission to the Cabots, to discover countries then unknown to Christian people, and to take possession of them in the name of the King of England. Two years afterwards, Cabot proceeded on this voyage, and discovered the continent of North America, along which he sailed as far south as Virginia. To this discovery the English trace their title. In this first effort made by the English government to acquire territory on this continent, we perceive a complete recognition of the principle which has been mentioned. The right of discovery given by this commission is confined to countries then unknown to Christian people'; and of these countries Cabot was empowered to take possession in the name of the King of England. Thus asserting a right to take possession, notwithstanding the occupancy of the natives, who were heathens, and, at the same time, admitting the prior title of any Christian people, who may have made a previous discovery. § 13. “The same principle continued to be recognized.
zed. The charter granted to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, in 1578, authorizes him to discover and take possession of such remote, heathen, and barbarous lands, as were not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people. This charter was afterwards renewed to Sir Walter Raleigh, in nearly the same terms.
$ 14. “By the charter of 1606, under which the first permanent English settlement on this continent was made, James the First granted to Sir Thomas Gates and others, those territories in America lying on the sea-coast between the 34th and 45th degrees of north latitude, and which either belonged to that monarch, or were not then possessed by any other Christian prince or people. The grantees were divided into two companies at their own request. The first, or southern colony was directed to settle between the 34th and 41st degrees of north latitude ; and the second, or northern colony, between the 38th and 45th degrees.
§ 15. “In 1609, after some expensive and not very successful attempts at settlement had been made, a new and more enlarged charter was given by the crown to the first colony, in which the king granted to the Treasurer and Company of Adventurers of the city of London for the first colony in Virginia,' in absolute property, the lands extending along the sea-coast four hundred miles, and into the land throughout from sea to sea.
This charter, which is a part of the special verdict in this cause, was annulled so far as respected the rights of the company, by the judgment of the Court of King's Bench on a writ of quo warranto; but the whole effect allowed to this judgment was, to revest in the crown the powers of government, and the title to the lands within its limits.
§ 16. “At the association of those who held under the grant to the second or northern colony, a new and more enlarged charter was granted to the Duke of Lenox and others, in 1620, who were denominated the Plymouth Company, conveying to them in absolute property all the lands between the 40th and 48th degrees of north latitude. Under this patent, New England has been in a great measure settled. The company conveyed to Henry Rosewell and others, in 1627, that territory which is now Massachusetts; and in 1628, a charter of incorporation, comprehending the powers of government, was granted to the purchas
A great part of New England was granted by this company, which, at length, divided their remaining lands among themselves; and, in 1635, surrendered their charter to the crown. A patent was granted to Gorges for Maine, which was allotted to him in the division of property. All the grants made by the Plymouth Company, so far as we can learn, have been respected.
$ 17. “In pursuance of the same principle, the king, in 1664, granted to the Duke of York the country of New England as far south as the Delaware Bay. His royal highness transferred New Jersey to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret.
§ 18. “In 1663, the crown granted to Lord Clarendon and others the country lying between the 36th degree of north latitude and the river St. Mathes; and in 1666, the proprietors obtained from the crown a new charter, granting to them that prov
ince in the king's dominions in North America, which lies from 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude to the 29th degree, and from the Atlantic Ocean to the South Sea.
$ 19. “ Thus has our whole country been granted by the crown while in the occupation of the Indians. These grants purport to convey the soil, as well as the right of dominion, to the grantees. In those governments which were denominated royal, where the right to the soil was not vested in individuals, but remained in the crown, or was vested in the colonial government, the king claimed and exercised the right of granting lands, and of dismembering the government at his will. The grants made out of the two original colonies, after the resumption of their charters by the crown, are examples of this. The governments of New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and a part of Carolina were thus 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 governments is dependent on these grants. In some instances, the soil was conveyed by the crown unaccompanied by the powers of government, as in the case of the northern neck of Virginia. It has never been objected to this, or to any other similar grant, that the title as well as possession was in the Indians when it was made, and that it passed nothing on that account.
$ 20. “These various patents cannot be considered as nullities; nor can they be limited to a mere grant of the powers of government. A charter intended to convey political power only would never contain words expressly granting the land, the soil, and the waters. Some of them purport to convey 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 always acknowledged itself to be bound by the grant. Though the power to dismember regal governments was asserted and exercised, the power to dismember proprietary governments was not claimed. And, in some instances, even after the powers of government were revested in the crown, the title of the proprietors to the soil was respected.
§ 21. “ Charles the Second was extremely anxious to acquire the property of Maine, but the grantees sold it to Massachusetts, and he did not venture to contest the right of the colony to the soil. The Carolinas were originally proprietary governments.