ROYCE. ] TREATIES OF FORT HARMAR. 251 
adjoining and more remote allies were taken into consideration. The 
breadth and boldness of the territorial claims thus asserted by the 
United States were not long in producing their natural effect. The ac- 
tive and sagacious Brant succeeded in reviving his favorite project of an 
alliance between the Six Nations and the northwestern tribes. He ex- 
perienced but little trouble in convening a formidable assemblage of In- 
dians at Huron Village, opposite Detroit, where they held council to. 
gether from November 28 to December 18, 1786. 
These councils resulted in the presentation of an address to Congress, 
wherein they expressed an earnest desire for peace, but firmly insisted 
thatall treaties carried on with the United States should be with the gen- 
eral voice of the whole confederacy in the most open manner; that the 
United States should prevent surveyors and others from crossing the 
Ohio River; and they proposed a general treaty early in the spring of 
1787. This address purported to represent the Five Nations, Hurons, 
Ottawas, Twichtwees, Shawanese, Chippewas, Cherokees, Delawares, 
Pottawatomies, and the Wabash Confederates, and was signed with the 
totem of each tribe. 
Such a remonstrance, considering the weakness of the government 
under the old Articles of Confederation, and the exhausted condition im- 
mediately following the Revolution, produced a profound sensation in 
Congress. That body passed an act providing for the negotiation of a 
treaty or treaties, and making an appropriation for the purchase and ex- 
tinguishment of the Indian claim to certain lands. These preparations 
and appropriations resulted in two treaties made at Fort Harmar, Jan- 
uary 9, 1789, one with the Six Nations, and the other with the Wian- 
dot, Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Pottawatima, and Sac Nations, 
wherein the Indian title of occupancy is clearly acknowledged. That 
the government so understood and recognized this principle as entering 
into the text of those treaties is evidenced by a communication bearing 
date June 15, 1789, from General Knox, then Secretary of War, to Presi- 
dent Washington, and which was communicated by the latter on the 
same day to Congress, in which it is declared that— 
The Indians, being the prior occupants, possess the right of soil. It cannot be taken 
from them unless by their free consent, or by right of conquest in case of ajust war. To 
dispossess them on any other principle would be a gross violation of the fundamental 
laws of nature, and of that distributive justice which is the glory of a nation. 
The principle thus outlined and approved by the administration of 
President Washington, although more than once questioned by inter- 
ested parties, has almost, if not quite, invariably been sustained by the 
legal tribunals of the country, at least by the courts of final resort ; and 
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States bear consist- 
ent testimony to its legal soundness. Several times has this question 
in different forms appeared before the latter tribunal for adjudication, 
and in each case has the Indian right been recognized and protected. 
In 1823, 1831, and 1832, Chief Justice Marshall successively delivered 
