The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1814-10-15

and that of the United States, and had not
been alluded TO by Lord Castlereagh, in his
letter proposing the negotiation, it could not
be expected that they should have been an
tcipated and made the subject of instructions
by our government that it was natural TO be
supposed that our Instructions were confined
10 those subjects upon which differences be-
tween the two countries were known to exist
and that the proposition to define, in treaty
between the y. States and G.. Britain, the beun-
Diary OK the Indian possessions within our ter
ritorles, was new and without example. No
such provision had been inserted in the treaty
OF peace OF 1888, norin any other treaty be-
tween the two countries. No such provision
had, t. our kno Wedge, ever been inserted j..
any treaty made by Great Britain or anv other
EurCpean power in relation to the sane de-
scuption OF people, existing under like cir
cumstances. We would say. however, that
IT would not lie doubted, that peace with the
Indians would certainly follow peace with
Great brtaiu: that we had information that
Commissioners had already been appointed to
treat with them that a treaty to that effect
might, perhaps, have already been concluded
amt that the United States having no inter
ct nor any motive, to continue separate war
against the Indians, there could never be a
moment when our government would not be
disposed to make peace with them.
We then expressed our wish to receive from
the Sr. Commissioners statement of the views
aud objects OF U. II. upon all the points, and our'
Willingness 20 discuss them all in order that,
even If no arrangement should be agreed on,
upon the points not included in our instructions,
the government Of the II. s. might be possess
ed OF the entire and precise intention of that
OF Great Britain, respecting these points and
that the British government might be fully in
formed of tic objections, on the part of the u.
-. TO any such ARRANGEMENT
In answer to our remark that these points
had not been alluded to by Lord Castlereagh,
IN his letter proposing the negotiation, it was
said, that it could not be expected, that, in
letter merely intended to invite negotiation,
| nc should enunerate the topics of discussion
| or state the pretensions of his government ;
| since these would depend upon Interior G.
vents. and might arise out of a subsequent st tie
of things.
| In reply to our observation, that the pro-
| posed stipulation of an Indian boundary was
| without example in the practice of European
nations, it was asserted that the Indians must
III some sort be considered as an independent
| people, since treaties were made with them
both by Great Britain and by the United
| States upon which we pointed out the obvi-
| GUS and important difference between the
treaties we might make with Indians, living
IN our territory, and such treaty as was
| proposed to be made. respecting them, with a
| foreign power who had solenlnlv acknowled-
| ged the territory on which they resided to be
| part of the u. States.
We were then asked by the British COM
| missoners whether, in case they should en-
| ter further upon the discussion of the seve-
! raj points which had been stated, we could
| expect that it would terminate by some
| provisional arrangements on the prints on
which we had no instructions, particularly or
| that respecting the Indians, which arrange
| ment would be subect to the ratification cf our
| government?
| We answered that, before the subjects
I were distinctly understood, and the objects in
| view more precisely diclosed, we could not
| decide whether il would be possible to form
| any satisfactory article on the subject
| nor pledge ourselves as to the exercise
OK discretion under our powers even with
! respect TO provisional agreement. We
| added, that as we should deeply deplore a
| rupture Of the negotiation ON any point it was
| our anxious desire to employ all possible
| means to avert an event so serious in its con
| sequences and that we had not been without
| hopes that discussion might correct the eff
| feet of any erroneous information which the
British governmentnlight have received on the
subject, which they had proposed as a pre-
| liminary basis.
We took this opportunity TO remark, That
! no nation observed policy more liberal and
| humane towards the Indians than that pur-
| sued by the u. States; that our object had
| been, by al practicable means. to Introduce
| civilization amongst them that their pos
/ sessions were secured to them by well defined
| boundaries that their persons. lands and o.
| Their property were now more effeCtually pro-
| tected against violence or frauds from any
| quarter, than they had been under any for
| mer government that even our citizens were
not allowed to purch use their lands that
when they gave UP their title to any portion
| of their country to the United States, it was
| by voluntary treaty with our government,
who gave them a satisfactory equivalent and
! that through these means the U. States had
succeeded in preserving, since the treaty of
| Greenvilie of 1895, an uninterrupted peace Of
| IS years, with all the Indian tribes period
oftrdnquiiity much longer tran they were
! known to have enjoyed heretofore.
! Il was then expressly stated on oar part,
| thatthe proposition respecting the Indians,
| was no. distinctly understood. We asked
| whether the pacifrcation, and the settlement
| OF a boundary for them, were both made n
sine g'ta nan? Which was answered IN the
| affirmative. The question was then asked
| the British Commissioners, whether the pro-
| posed indian boundary was intended 10 pre-
Ciude the y. States from the right IF purcha-
sing by treaty from the Indians. without the
| conseGt'of G.. Britain, lands lying beyond that
| boundary And as a restriction upon the
Iudi ans ffrOrn NC hvancable trcnties Ior,ie