Cherokee Phoenix


Published March, 31, 1832

Page 3 Column 2c



It is understood that the widow of the late Charles R. Hicks was dispossessed of her place on Thursday last by a Mr. Wacasey who it appears had rented the place from the Georgia Agent Gen. Coffee, the place was emigrated by her son Edward Hicks two years ago without the consent of the widow and the other members of the family. So much for the humane policy of Georgia.


Judge Daugherty, Judge of the Western Circuit of Georgia, to whom a mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States was directed, has refused to reverse the Judgement of the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, sentencing Messrs. Worcester and Butler to hard labor in the Penitentiary for four years. The papers of course have been returned to the Supreme Court-the refusal to obey the mandate, on the part of the Georgia Judge brings the State directly into a conflict with the Judiciary of the United States.- It is now certain that the President will be called on to carry the decision of the Supreme Court into execution. What course General Jackson will pursue is yet to be seen. Will he leave any regard for the decision of this high tribunal, or will he, as he had done, 'in the plenitude of his usurpation,' in other instances of like nature, pronounce the opinion of the Constitutional interpretation of the laws, and expounders of the Constitution of no force and say that the arm of the General Government cannot interpose? If he does not carry the decision of the Supreme Court into execution, the people of the United States may at once proclaim him their King or Emperor.

It is impossible to conceive how any man who has not been led astray by prejudice and self interest, after reading the opinion of the Court, can for a moment doubt respecting the unconstitutionality of the law of Georgia extending jurisdiction over a part of the Cherokee Nation.- There are men of high standing, and able lawyers in Georgia, who seem to think that the Supreme Court made the decision in favor of its own power; such is the doctrine held out by Judge Daugherty;- but what is the power which the Supreme Court has assumed in deciding on this question? What are the arguments to support the claims of Georgia to the jurisdiction over the territory? There are none. I heard the Judge deliver his opinion on this subject on last Monday at Court held at Harnages in this nation. After opening the Court, Judge Underwood, legal counsel for this nation, addressed the Court in a speech of considerable length. He contended that the law of Georgia, passed at the late session of the legislature, forming a new county in the nation called 'Cherokee' was unconstitutional; he quoted several articles of the treaties between the General Government and the Cherokee Nation and also produced the acts of the legislature to show, that that State had always acknowledged the Cherokees as out of her jurisdiction up to, but a few years back--and finally spoke of the recent decision of the highest tribunal of the United States.--It was an able speech bringing forth plain and conclusive arguments; and they were unanswerable; as was proven by opinion on reply by Judge Daugherty. He commenced by saying he was not placed on that Judiciary bench to nullify the laws of Georgia-he was not prepared to do so-said he did not come there to make laws but to execute them. In speaking of the Supreme Court he said, that he entertained a high respect for the members of the Court, but after proceeding a little farther, I thought he did not speak in very respectable terms towards the court said something of interference, the members of the Supreme Court he said were no more than men fallible beings, possessing ambition and love of power, one thing, he a said he knew ; that the Supreme Court had never decided against the United States, nor against its own power.- He said, the State of Alabama had extended her laws over the Cherokee and Creek Indians, within her limits, but no complaint is made-no one interferes-but as soon as Georgia had undertaken to govern over all her acknowledged bounds, then the question is brought before the Supreme Court--and they decide against Georgia--it is against Georgia alone all the hostility is directed-in order to deprive her of her just and acknowledged rights. The Gen. Government, he said had violated her contract with the State of Georgia instead of removing the Indians out of the limits, as she was bound to do, she had by her policy, settled them more permanently on the Georgia lands. --Ed. Cher. Phoe.



Permit me through your paper to express my gratitude to the parents for the prompt and constant attendance of their children the season past. While I know this has been for the good of their own offspring, I have the inexpressible satisfaction of feeling at the close of the school that my labors have not been fruitless. Had the attendance of the scholars been irregular could have have (sic) done them little good, and should have been obliged to communicate the painful fact to my patrons.

I have known and seen the difficulty of keeping small children in school where the place of instruction is so near their mothers fire-side; and have seen with gratitude the decision and perseverance of the parents in this respect. If the scholars have not improvement the past season the defect has not been found in the irregularity of their attendance, our want of delegated authority of the teacher, for she had the unlimited control of her pupils without any of that complaining when a child has been corrected, which is so often found in common schools in our country.

No person, who has not felt the responsibilities of having the care and instruction of children, can properly estimate parental authority and influence in aiding in the important work. When worn with the exhausting labor of teaching and when we see our efforts for the morals of the scholars defeated or counteracted by the example of wicked men around, how cheering and sustaining parental authority and influence, when exerted on the side of morals and religion.- On the other hand when we have labored to fix-moral principle-taught the children to think and act as the Bible directs, how does the blasting influence of parental example wither our hopes and labors when this example is contrary to the bible. While I feel and acknowledge my own defects in example I would invite the attention of parents and all who have the care of children to this subject. From the Bible we may learn what our example should be, but let us not for a moment forget that our example will effect children, and that while they slow to follow the good they are to perceive and practice the evil, for it is true of children that 'They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.'