Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-04-16
IN SENATE.

IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, April 9, 1924.
On motion of Mr. Seymour, the Committee
on the Judiciary were discharged from the fur
Their consideration of the petition of James Tho
mas; aud the petitioner had leave to Withdraw
his papers.
PROTECTION OF THE FUR TRADE.
The unfinished business of Wednesday last,
being the further consideration of the bill ssto
enable the President to carry into effect the
treaty made at Client, the 18th December. 1914.
excluding foreigners from trade and intercourse,
with the Indian tribes within the United States.
and to preserve the fur trade within the limits
ofthe said United States to Aprrican citizens. y
was then taken up MIR. Knight in the chair.
The question was upon the adoption of "a new
section, proposed by Mr.. Barton, as a substitute
Tor the third section of the bill. The amend
ment provides, that the office Of superintendent
OF Indian affairs, ut ST. Louis, shall be abolished
and authorizes the President to appoint GER
tam number OfIndiau agents, to be stationed a.
mong the Indian tribes OH the waters of the Up
per Missouri. 1t makes it the duty of the SUI
perintendents and agents of Indian affairs, TO
prevent all citizens of the United States from
hunting and trapping on any Indian lands, and
to enforce the laws against all such persons as
shall be guilty of those offences; for which pur-
pose, the superintendent and agents are to be
authorized to call upon the nearest military
posts of the United States for aid.
On the suggestion of Mr.. Benton, the motion
was divided, and the question put upon striking
out the third section OF the bill which authors
zes the appointment of two sub-agents, to the
employed ongthc Indian tribes on the waters
of the Upper Missouri, with annual salaries of
$500 each. Some remarks were madeby Mes
RPnfnn nd fl,. L
ing put, the Senate refused 10 strike out the
third section.
MIR. Lowrie moved to strike out the 9Th sec
ton of the bill. Itprovides an appropriation Of
SIS, 100 'sto enable sthe President to cause Il
competent military force to be transported to,
and stationed at, such point on the Upper Mis-
souri,, as he shall deem best calculated to effect
the objects ofthis BILL" Mir. l.. said he thorat
1t would be quite fine enough for us to take
measures FOR the protection of our fur trade,
whenwe had succeeded in preventing our own
citizens from hunting and trapping on the In
dian territories.
Mr.. Benton read some documents, i'm relation
to the expense of tie proposed expedition, and
to prove its necessity rs 4 means for protection
to, and increase OF, our valuable fur tarde. He
SAID the only question was, whether the fur trade
was worth the expense of supporting four com
pdiieS I'D project It lie believed IL was well
worth the expense.
Mr.. Holmes, of Maine, thought that single
post would be altogether inadequate to the con-
templated object. line of posts would be ne
cessary, which would involve the country in
great expense. He adverted to the question
of our right to invade the Indian territory with
an armed force. We have the power to do 1T,
but he denied the right. II was entering again
INTO course of policy which the government
had, after mature dcliberation, relinquisied.
MIR. johnson, OF Kentucky, spoke of the es-
adjustment of military posts, for the protection
OF our frontiers, as necessary power, and one
which had always been exercised by the govern
ment. he commended for the power and the
right ofextending protection against the abort
gines on the Western waters, and for the pre-
seryat! of the fur trade. Mr.. j. proceeded
to show the necessity of military post, in the
quarter of the country mentioned in this bill
Mr.. Holmes, of Maine, replied to Mir. john
son. He was disposed to do every thing Gees
sary for the protection Of the West; but did not
believe this measure TO be requisite for that pur-
pose. He did not consider this question APP
pertaining merely 10 the Western country, for
many of the Western members he'd, as he rerol-
tectcd, voted against the appropriation for the
Yellow Stone expedition. He again alluded
ID Tue Necessity Oh IN" III posts Tor tDe pr0teC-
ton of that to be established by this bill.
Mr.. Mills said, if satisfied Of The necessity of
this measure, he should not inquire whether it
was for the good Of tie East or the West or
what was the expense. lie theught the first
part of the biilvery proper. As far as negota-
ton went, hc approved it. We had always
considered these Indian tribes as independent
NATIONS, and treated them as such. He was will
ling to negotiate with them on this subject: but
was not willing to march military force into
theft country III time of peace. lie reverted to
the policy Of this government towards the In
dians to- the character ofo1tr treaties with them;
and the tenure by which they hold their lands
When we are at war with these Indian nations,
we have un1oubtiy right to march our troops
into, and take possession of their country; but
he denied, altogether, the right to DO this in time
of peace. He thought the Indians were aIrca-
dy sufficiently restricted il their rights without
intreDching upon those which they possess.
They have as good right to carry their ftIrs to
the British, as to any other traders; as much so,
as we have tO sell our goods 70 vhomsOever we
choose. Mr.. H. thought the principal Difficult
tics with the Indians arose FROM the inCrince-
ment Of their rights, 5v our citizens, in hunting
and trapping on the Indian grounds He was
in favor of striking out the 5th section.
Mr.. Benton replied to Mr.. Mills. He re-
ferred to the first section Of The bill, as doing a.
way The objection which had been made to The
5th, Il proyidc5ior the negotation referred to.
Pie said the question was not, whether We should
prevent the Indians from selling their furs to
llray phase, but. whether ne SHAH