The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1814-10-17

grounds OF any controversy between the government
Of Grea.3ritai and that OF the United States, and
had not been alluded to by Lord CastereIgh. in his
latter proposing the negotiation, it could not be ex
pected that they should have been anticipated and
made the subject of instructions by governments
that it was natural 70 be supposed, that nstrac
tions were confined to those subjects upon which
differences between the two countries were known
to exist and that the proposition to define, in
treaty between the United States and Great Britain
the boundary OF the Indian possessions within our
territory, was new and without example. No such
provision had been inserted in the treaty Of peace in
1893, nor in any other tresty between the two
tries No such provision had, to our knowledge
ever been inserted in any treaty made by Great.Bri
tain or any other European power in relation To the
same description Of people, existing under like cir
cumstances We would say, however, that it would
DC doubted, that peace with the Indians would
tsinly follow a peace with Great. Britain; that We
had information that Commssi toner's had already
been appointed to treat with them that treaty TO
that effect might, perhaps, have been already con.
cluded and that the United States having inter-
est, nor any motive, TO continue separate war
gainst the Indians, there could never be moment
when our government would not be disposed TO make
peace with them.
We then expressed our wish to receive from the
British Commissioners statement of the vie and
objects of Great Britain upon all the points, and
Willingness to discuss them all, in order that,
II no arrangement should be agreed on, upon the
nent Of the United States might be posse of the
entire and precise mentions Of that OF Great Brit
ain, respecting these points, and that the British
government might be fully informed Of the objec-
tiors, on the part of the u States, in my such
rangement.
In answer TO Our remark that these points had not
been alluded to by Lord Casteregh, IN his letter pro
posing the negotiation, it said, that it could not
be expected, that in letter merely intended TO in
vlte negotation he should enumerate the topics OF
discussion, state the pre,entions of his govern
rnent; since these would depend upon Interior G.
vents, and nigh, arise out OF subsequent state OF
things. s.
In reply to observation, that the proposed s,i-
puiaton Of an Indian boundary was without exam
pie in the practice of European nations, it was AS
serted that the Indians must in sort be consid-
cred as an Independent people, since treaties were
made with them, both by Great Britain and by the
United States upon which we pointed out tie obvi'
Gus and important difference between the treaties
might make with Indians living in our territory, and
such treaty as was proposed to be made, respect
ing them, with foreign power, who had sOle,nnly
acknowledge the territory which they resided to
be- part Of the United States.
Ne were then asked by the British. Commission.
ers whether in case they should enter further upoa
the discussion OF the several points which mad been
stated, we could expect that it would terminate by
some PROVISIONAL arrangement on the points On which
we had no instructions, particularly on that resuact
ject TO the ratification of our government
We answered that, before the subjects were dis
tnctly understood, and the objects IN view more
precisely disclosed we could not decide whether it
would be possible To form any satisfactory article on
subject nor pledge ourselves to the exercise Of
discretion under our powers, even with respect to
a provisional agreement.-We added, that as we
should deeply deplore rupture OF the negotiation
any point, il was anxious desire 10 employ all
possible means to avert an event SO serious IN It's
consequences {; and that we had not been without
hopes that discussion might correct the ELECT OF
any erroneous informal which the British govern
ment might have received on the subject, which
they had proposed as a preliminary basis
We took this opportunity To remark, that no ma
ton observed policy more liberal and humane to-
wards the indians than than that pursued by the u
nted StatcA that our object had been, by all pract
icablc means, to introduce civilization among hem
that their possessions secured TO them by well
defined boundaries that their persons, lands and
other property were now more ettec'ua'Iy projected
against violence or fra,Nls from any quarter, than
they had been under any former government; that
even citizens were not allowed 10 purchase their
lands that when they gave up their title 10 any por
tion Of their country the Unitcd States, 1T was by
voluntary treaty with our government, Who gave
them satisfactory equivalent and that thro' these
means the Unucd States had succeeded in preserv.
ing, since the treaty of Greenve OF l7SS an unln.
terrupted peace Of Is years, with all the Indian
tribes; a period os tranquility much longer than
they were known TO have sijoyed heretofore
1t was then expressly stated on our part the
proposition respecting the Indians was no, distinctly
understood. We asked whether the pacihcation
and the settlement of boundary for them were both
made sine qua non? Which was answered in The
affirmative. The question was then asked the Brit.
ish Commissioners, whether the proposed Indian
boundary was intended TO preclude the U. States
from the right of purchasing by treaty from the In
dians, without the consent of Great Britain lands
lying beyond that boundary And restriction
upon the Indians from selling by aIncable treaties
lands to the United States as had been hitherto prac.
tsed To this question, il first answered by one
of the Commissioners. that the Indians woIld no,
be restricted from selling their lands, but that the
United States would be restricted from purchasing
them; sad reflection another Of the Comraissi
stated, that il intended that the Indian ter.
rtories should be barrier between the British do
minons and those of the United States; that both
Great Britain and the United States should be re.
sricted from purchasing their lands; but that the
India ns m tvht hem, tn a third parfv