was nothing in
the decision to indicate that the extension of the laws of Georgia
over them was valid and constitutional. Indeed, in a second case that
came up shortly, Worcester _vs._ State of Georgia, the Court strongly
backed up the Indians' contention. Worcester was a Presbyterian
missionary who was imprisoned for violation of a Georgia statute
forbidding white persons to reside in the Cherokee territory without a
license. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and in the
decision of March 10, 1832, Marshall affirmed the status of the
Cherokees as a "nation" within whose territory "the laws of Georgia
can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to
enter but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves or in conformity
with treaties and with the acts of Congress." The statute was
accordingly declared to be unconstitutional and Worcester was ordered
to be discharged.

This ought to have been enough to protect the Cherokees in their
rights. But it was not, and for two reasons: the contempt of Georgia
for the Court's opinions, and the refusal of Jackson to restrain the
State in its headstrong course. Already the state authorities had
refused to take notice of a writ of error to the Supreme Court sued
out in December, 1830, in behalf of a condemned Cherokee, Corn Tassel,
and had permitted the execution of the unfortunate redskin. The state
court now refused to issue a writ of _habeas corpus_ in behalf of
Worcester, and the prisoner was held--precisely as if the law under
which he was convicted had been pronounced constitutional--until he
was pardoned by the Governor a year later.

This action on the part of the State was, of course, nothing less than
nullification. Yet Jackson did not lift a finger. "John Marshall has
made his decision," he is reported to have said; "now let him enforce
it." The South Carolinians were quick to seize upon the
inconsistencies of the situation. Nullification in their State was
apparently one thing; in Georgia, quite another. The very fact,
however, that the Georgians had successfully defied the federal
Supreme Court did much to encourage their neighbors in a course of
similar boldness. Jackson's leniency toward Georgia has never been
wholly explained. He was undoubtedly influenced by his sympathy with
the purpose of the State to establish its jurisdiction over all lands
within its borders. Furthermore he cherished an antipathy for Marshall
which even led him to