{"character_count": 1719, "word_count": 300, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9445000290870667], "ccnet_perplexity": [1497.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Weextract the following from com Inenication i'll the New York Evening Post.

 Ut appears not little singular that, in the opinion Of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the late Cherokee case, no noticeis taken of point, upon which the question might very plausi- biy have been decided in favor of the plaintiff in error (Worcester) without touching question of the jurisdiction of the state of Georgia over tic Chero- keeterfitory. The law pronounced un- constitutional, provides in substance, us IS here understood, that all persons rc- siding in the Cherokee territory, ex- eept the agents of the United States, shall take an oath to obey the laws of Georgia, and for disobedience to that law, Worcester is now suffering his punishment. The constitution Of tAe United States provides that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunitics of citizensin tie several states.

 sQW admitting tllat lne SiiefoKee territory is a part of the state of Geor- gia, and that the laws of the state are binding in that territory, is it not 8 se- flous question whether the state of Georgia CT any other state can consti- tutlonaliy exact such an oath from a citizen; an oath which, if observed, nasgHt interfere directly with his ac- hiowledged duties to the government of the United States. Much might be said on this subject, but it is not neecs- sary here to argue this question, which one would think the learning and ingcn uity of the counsel for the plaintiff in error. might have discovered. The ar gumehts of these gentlemen arenot be- fore the public, but as this point is hot alluded to in the opinion of the Court, it is fair to infer that it was not discussed in the argument"