WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1839
instead of 1822. This mistake had afterwards been explained away, but it had been insinuated that he might have had some interest in filling the blank with 1832. Perhaps, said an honor- able member, that the gentleman from San Augustine has some interest in locations which have been made previous to 1832, and does not wish to interfere with them. He should think meanly of himself if [he] could have a sinister view upon this subject. His only motive was to sustain a sacred pledge--and he called upon the members of this house to sustain him in the good work. He never feared the light upon any subject, nor never entertained a principle that he would not avow. He believed the land be- longed to the Indians, and that it was not subject to location under the land law of Texas- and consequently all locations which had been made were null. When the Indians were driven out in August last, the land reverted to the Republic, and was hot subject to location until the action of Congress had been had upon it, and consequently all locations which have been made upon the land up to this date are illegal. The land is conse- ·quently subject to the disposition of Congress, and he hoped they would make such disposition of it, as would not only add to the reputation, but increase the wealth of the country. In order to throw contempt upon this subject the Indians had been misrepresented in many ways. The Cherokees who had set- tled in this country had been accused of having been outlawed by their tribe in the United States-and that they had been driven from place to place for their crimes, until they had finally reached Texas. If they had been so celebrated for their crimes at home, he should have thought they would have pursued the same course here. But from a long and intimate acquaintance with them, he was induced to award them a different character. He heard them accused the other day of having committed mur- ders at the Saline. But mere accusations were not proof; and he knew something about the history of this affair. .He knew that a Cherokee had brought in three prisoners and delivered them up to the whites. If his own countrymen had committed the murder why did he do this? Would he not rather have destroyed them all to cut off the possibility of proof against his nation? Nothing is more plain- the wild Indians committed the deprecations, and the friendly Cherokees rescued them from the savage cruelty and delivered them to their own people. The Bowl said he had some bad men in the nation-they had run off and joined the wild Indians; and he informed the people of this country of the fact-
Powered by FlippingBook