{"character_count": 1727, "word_count": 293, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9668999910354614], "ccnet_perplexity": [2268.60009765625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
ns individuals, 70 the rant lea to them, it was pretty distinctly i'ltimat- cd, in the opinion of the Court, that !hese made !,; :ss!::<!s they; may be brought before the Supreme Court for adjudication.

 The opinion went 10 say, that, if the objection to entertaining jurisdiction iii' .tlsis case were not fatal 10 the appiica- tion, n,thcfe were other grounds on which ail application iol the interference Of this Court in the case, would encounter grave objections. If jurisdiction was exercised in the case, 1t must be on the ground that the Cherokees are foreign nation: and the relations between fo-= reign Powers and the States arc placed in the charge ofa different branch of the Government. For this Court to under take to arbitrate such questions, would be 10 assume a political power not in- tended to be vested in it. f it were true. as argued. that the Cherokee na-. ton is oppressed by the State of Geor- gia, ac. &c., it belonged not to this Court {she aPiaioH eenellaiiedi,11 but 10 other tribunals, to assert their rights and redress their wrongs.

 Mir. Justice Baldwin delivered a very long separate opinion. agreeing entirely in the conclusion to which the majority of the Court had arrived, but not con curing in the views taken in tho opia- ion which had been read.

 Mr. Justice Johnson also delivered separate opinion on the question.

 Our ozen opinion on the subject is of little consequence; but the reasoning of the Court upon the Constitutional pro visions bearing upon the case, appeared to Us to be conclusive.

 'fi ffiile Baltimore Republican says:- ]" The Court were divided on the ques- ton. The Chief Justice, and Justices Johnson, Mclean, and Baldwin, against Justices Thompson and Story.o