s should thereafter become so. To this
construction of its meaning I have endeavored to conform, and have taken
no step inconsistent with it. As soon, therefore, as the sovereign power
of the State of Georgia was exercised by an extension of her laws
throughout her limits, and I had received information of the same,
orders were given to withdraw from the State the troops which had been
detailed to prevent intrusion upon the Indian lands within it, and these
orders were executed. The reasons which dictated them shall be frankly
communicated.

The principle recognized in the section last quoted was not for the
first time then avowed. It is conformable to the uniform practice of the
Government before the adoption of the Constitution, and amounts to a
distinct recognition by Congress at that early day of the doctrine that
that instrument had not varied the powers of the Federal Government over
Indian affairs from what they were under the Articles of Confederation.
It is not believed that there is a single instance in the legislation of
the country in which the Indians have been regarded as possessing
political rights independent of the control and authority of the States
within the limits of which they resided. As early as the year 1782 the
Journals of Congress will show that no claim of such a character was
countenanced by that body. In that year the application of a tribe of
Indians residing in South Carolina to have certain tracts of land which
had been reserved for their use in that State secured to them free from
intrusion, and without the right of alienating them even with their own
consent, was brought to the consideration of Congress by a report from
the Secretary of War. The resolution which was adopted on that occasion
is as follows:

_Resolved_, That it be recommended to the legislature of South
Carolina to take such measures for the satisfaction and security of
said tribes as the said legislature in their wisdom may think fit.

Here is no assertion of the right of Congress under the Articles of
Confederation to interfere with the jurisdiction of the States over
Indians within their limits, but rather a negation of it. They refused
to interfere with the subject, and referred it under a general
recommendation back to the State, to be disposed of as her wisdom might
decide.

If in addition to this act and the language of the Articles of
Confederation anything further can be wanting to show the early