stantly waited upon Humphreys only to find the
agent little more powerful than himself. Thus matters continued through
1829 and 1830. In violation of all legal procedure, the Indians were
constantly _required to relinquish beforehand property in their
possession to settle a question of claim_. On March 21, 1830, Humphreys
was informed that he was no longer agent for the Indians. He had been
honestly devoted to the interest of these people, but his efforts were
not in harmony with the policy of the new administration.

Just what that policy was may be seen from Jackson's special message
on Indian affairs of February 22, 1831. The Senate had asked for
information as to the conduct of the Government in connection with the
act of March 30, 1802, "to regulate trade and intercourse with the
Indian tribes and to preserve peace on the frontiers." The Nullification
controversy was in everybody's mind, and already friction had arisen
between the new President and the abolitionists. In spite of Jackson's
attitude toward South Carolina, his message in the present instance was
a careful defense of the whole theory of state rights. Nothing in the
conduct of the Federal Government toward the Indian tribes, he insisted,
had ever been intended to attack or even to call in question the rights
of a sovereign state. In one way the Southern states had seemed to be an
exception. "As early as 1784 the settlements within the limits of North
Carolina were advanced farther to the west than the authority of the
state to enforce an obedience of its laws." After the Revolution the
tribes desolated the frontiers. "Under these circumstances the first
treaties, in 1785 and 1790, with the Cherokees, were concluded by the
Government of the United States." Nothing of all this, said Jackson, had
in any way affected the relation of any Indians to the state in which
they happened to reside, and he concluded as follows: "Toward this race
of people I entertain the kindest feelings, and am not sensible that the
views which I have taken of their true interests are less favorable to
them than those which oppose their emigration to the West. Years since I
stated to them my belief that if the States chose to extend their laws
over them it would not be in the power of the Federal Government to
prevent it. My opinion remains the same, and I can see no alternative
for them but that of their removal to the West or a quiet submission to
the state laws. If they prefer to