Three companies of United States Troops have been ordered into the Cherokee country, for the purpose, it is said, of 'repressing the working of the mines.' --the troops of Georgia, not being able to accomplish that object. Gov. Gilmer, it is added, acquiesces in this arrangement! This acquiescence on the part of Georgia, strikes us as overturning her whole claim to jurisdiction. If these troops go to enforce the laws of the United States, then what becomes of the law of Georgia? They cannot both exist, and be in force at the same time. There is no concurrence of jurisdiction in this matter. It is exclusive on one side or the other. If the laws of the United States regulating intercourse with the Indians are admitted to be valid, then the jurisdiction law of Georgia falls; for the former declare the officers of the latter trespassers, and liable to heavy punishment as such. We should be glad to see this knot untied.

Suppose, however, it should turn out, that these troops are not enforcing the laws of the United States, but are aiding Georgia in executing her law; where, we would ask, is the authority to be found for thus employing the troops? Has any case arisen, in which the President may call out the military force of the country? Is there an insurrection in Georgia? There is a dilemma in this case, which must of necessity unhorse Gov. Gilmer or the President.

Fredonian