Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1825-03-08


mems, with the exception OF his own,
are not made on oath, and his ought 10
be excluded from consideration, on tbe
ground of interest. The facility with
which Interested persons or interpreters
might practice frauds on the ludfsns,
demands the strictest scrutiny, No tss-
umony should be receH cd, which DOES
not CONC IN an unquesuonaole shape,
II the four Indians did sign the insifa-
ment at Lac Trasers, az has been repre-
scented, they may possibly have been de-
ceiveG as TO the contents, or been lniiu-
eBced by some improper motives. Ii IS
scarcely supposable that they feel them
selves bound, by contract made half a
century ago. In tina, region OF country,
the aborigines know too well tho value
OF their territories to dispose OF them
without suitable compensation.
Captain Carver's Journal, which was
published first in the year 1873, is, as
the Committee believe, entirely silent III
relation 10 the grant. He records, with
some degree OF mlnuteness, many events
which took place about the time the in
s,rument bsars date. He describes the
country between Lake Pepin and the
Falls of St. Anthony as possessing many
natural advantages. Indeed, on the very
day il appears to have been given,
council was held al the Big Cave by Sc.
vcral tribes of Indians. Many Chiefs
attended, aud he delivered speech,
which he has communicated to the
world. Is i, not little extraordinary
that he should have iorborne TO journal
ize fac, SO interesting to himself, the
Indians, and his country? Not knowing
precisely when the grant first made its
appearance, the Commiltee is in no wise
disposed to say they are suspicious OF an
antcdate.
To counterfeit the facts stated by DR..
Peters and his friends, the Committee
will refer TO letter addressed by Col.
Leavenwor,h on the 28th day Of July.
1921, to the late Commissioner of the
General Land Office. The writer in
forms him that "the Indians do not re-
cognize or acknowledge the grant Gar
ver's) to be valid. They say they have
no knowledge OF any such chiefs asihose
who have signed the grant; and, IT he did
obtain deed or grant, it was signed by
some foolish young men who were not
Chiefs, and who were not authorized to
make the grant"
Major Long and his party assembled
the Mississippi river in the Summer OF
1928, aud had frequent interviews with
the Indians and their chiefs. They we're
at the village of Red Wing, (Aile
Rouge and whom they generally call
Shakea. He lives On the ives, bank OF
the river, a short distance above Lake
Pepin. The Petit Corbeau Little ka-
ven) resides ten miles below the mouth
of the St. Peters, and both are dstn-
gushed chiefs Of the Dacotas. NiaJor
Longs Interpreter, whose mother was
a squaw, was we'll acquainted with the
I"tiiass on the Mississippi and the rivers
tributary, near the Falls Of St. Anthony,
and Lake pepin. His statements, and
those OF the Indians, induced MAJOR
Long, and the gentlemen associated With
him, to give the following information:
at is, we believe, clearly proved, at
present, that the land which he (Catver)
claimed, by virtue of grant from the
Indians, was never conveyed to hio by
them. Attempts were made, in 1917,
by two of his grand-sons, to have the
claim recognized by some OF the Indians
now living They assembled the river
when Major Long did, but were not IS C.
cessful An instrument, purporsing to
be the original treaty, was afterwards
sen, to Canada, and placed in Renviile's
hands, by those who had an interest III
the claim. He was requested to show
it, and explain its nature, to the lndiani
and to endeavor 10 obtain coDlirmalioe
Of it from them; but, as he informed Us,
he could find no individual among the
who had the least recollection or trad
ton OF this conveyance, or OF the names
which are purported to have been affixed
to the deed. The Indians say, there
were no chiefs among them OF the name"
Major Long even doubts whether Carver
resided among the Naudowissies FIVE
months, and assigns his reasons Tor the
opinion. See p. 325 of his Journal, OF
1928.
Although negative answer to the first
question may seem to render farther dis
cussion unnecessary, the committee has
thought proper to offer few considcra-
tons on the second branch OF inquiry
In the case Of Johnson against Mlntosh,
repor,ed in 9Th Wheaton, the question
is settled beyond controversy. This was