e
Legislature of Georgia, in relation to the Cherokee nation, was
confined to its extraterritorial operation, the objection, though
complete, so far as respected mere right, would give this Court no
power over the subject. But it goes much further. If the view which has
been taken be correct, and we think it is, the acts of Georgia are
repugnant to the constitution, laws, and treaties, of the United
States.

They interfere forcibly with the relations established between the
United States and the Cherokee nation, the regulation of which,
according to the settled principles of our constitution, are committed
exclusively to the Government of the Union.

They are in direct hostility with treaties, repeated in a succession of
years, which mark out the boundary that separates the Cherokee country
from Georgia; guaranty to them all the land within their boundary;
solemnly pledge the faith of the United States to restrain their
citizens from trespassing on it; and recognize the pre-existing power
of the nation to govern itself.

They are in equal hostility with the acts of Congress for regulating
this intercourse and giving effect to the treaties.

The forcible seizure and abduction of the plaintiff in error, who was
residing in the nation, with its permission, and by authority of the
President of the United States, is also a violation of the acts which
authorize the Chief Magistrate to exercise this authority.

Will these powerful considerations avail the plaintiff in error? We
think they will. He was seized, and forcibly carried away, while under
guardianship of treaties guarantying the country in which he resided,
and taking it under the protection of the United States. He was seized
while performing, under the sanction of the Chief Magistrate of the
Union, those duties which the humane policy adopted by Congress had
recommended. He was apprehended, tried, and condemned, under color of a
law which has been shown to be repugnant to the constitution, laws, and
treaties, of the United States. Had a judgment, liable to the same
objections, been rendered for property, none would question the
jurisdiction of this Court. It cannot be less clear when the judgment
affects personal liberty, and inflicts disgraceful punishment, if
punishment could disgrace when inflicted on innocence. The plaintiff in
error is not less interested in the operation of this unconstitutional
law than if it affected his property. He is not less entitl