Today in Chickamauga History - December 4
1793, December 4: Statement of Secretary of War to President of United States relative to South Western Frontiers - ...Regarding the South West territory. Describes a limited state of war with the Cherokees, but also positive prospects for peace, which was broken by the actions of Captain John Beard, who defied Governor Blount's orders.
Refers to the great numbers of militia brought into service and the associated costs. Knox also suggests that it will be with an ill grace that Indians are punished while the white perpetrators escape with impunity. - https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/45684
1796, December 4: Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams - Yesterday I dined with the President in Company with John Watts the King of the Cherokees with a large Number of his Chiefs and their Wives—among the rest the Widow and Children of Hanging Maw a famous Friend of ours who was basely murdered by Some White People. The President dined four Setts of Indians on four several Days the last Week.1
1. John Watts (1752?–1802) and Hanging Maw (d. 1796) were both war leaders of the Cherokees, though Watts represented the Lower Cherokees, who took a more militant stance against the U.S. government, while Hanging Maw served the Upper Cherokees and favored negotiation with the United States. Watts came to Philadelphia in December in an attempt to get the government to enforce boundaries established by the 1785 Treaty of Hopewell. - https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-11-02-0220
1826, December 4: ARKANSAS TERRITORIAL PAPERS VOL XX – Page 313 – 314 - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY - [NA:JD, Atty. Genl. Opinions, Bk. C 51]
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL of the u. States
N° 5. December, 4. 1826
SIR, The statement and questions submitted for my opinion from the General Land Office are as follows. By an act passed on the 26 th of May 1824 pre-emption rights are granted to certain persons in the territory of Arkansas on certain conditions in the Land District of Lawrence-
"On the 18th of January 1825 a treaty was ratified with the Quapaws by which a tract of land was ceded to the U.S. part of which lies within the Land District of Lawrence.
The boundaries of the Land District of Lawrence, as they existed previous to the passage of the Act of May 1824 extended into the Quapaw country and embraced the Land claimed to be entered under the Act of May 1824.
Quere. Are lands thus situated subject to be entered as preemption rights under the act of 1824? If they be subject to such entry another question arises under the act of 1824, for the decision of the Attorney General-
By an Act passed at the last Session of Congress the limits of the Land District of Lawrence were extended so as to embrace a large quentity of very valuable lands 62
Quere. Are the lands embraced in this extension of the boundaries of the District subject to entry as preemption rights under the act of 1824?"
The privilege given by the act of 26 th May 1824 (Chap. 154) to the persons therein described is "to enter with the Register of the Land Office in the District of Lawrence in said territory, any tract within said District on which they may have made improvements previously to the passing of this act, or any unimproved tract within said District, the sale of which is authorised by law:" The questions are explained by the Commissioner of the General Land Office to arise on the words underscored. The District of Lawrence, as described by law, previous to the passage of this act, did comprehend the lands afterwards ceded by the Quapaws; but these lands were not at the date of the act, authorised to be sold, the title being at that time in the Quapaw Indians and the lands opened to these preemptions is not the whole the unimproved lands in the District of Lawrence, but the farther limitation is added "the sale of which is authorised by law," that is to
say, is now authorised by law-To extend the pre-emption to the lands subsequently ceded by the Quapaws, or to the other lands subsequently added to that District, would be to construe the word '.'is" to mean "shall have been" so as to make the passage read. "or any unimproved tract within the said District the sale of which_ shall have been authorised by law;" that is shall have been authorised at the time when the party comes to make his entry-,-But the act, as it stands, speaks in the present tense; and it would, I think, be rather too bold a construction to convert the present tense into the future past.
I am of the opinion that both questions must be answered in the negative - The letter of H. Boswell is returned 63-and I have the honor to remain, Sir, very respectfully Your Obedt Servt
To THE HON. RICHARD RUSH Treasury Department
[Endorsed] Pre-emption rights.