The Middlebury people's press. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1841-1843, 1843-02-15
DEBATE ON THE OREGON BILL.
Synopsis Of the Debate which occurred in The
Senate on Thursday the 23d Of January.

Mr. PHELPS continued the debate. As
a member of the committee from which the
bill came, he had, he said concurred in its
provisions, in which, indeed, they were un-
animous. 1t had not been his intention 10
speak; but he felt that it was due from him
to vindicate the bill from any supposed pur-
pose of contravening the treaty. The CON-
mit,ee had certsinly very i'll executed their
own intentions, the bill did so. They had
drawn the bill in conformity with what they
believed the rights and the Interpretation of
Great Britain.
As originally worded, the bill provided
that one section (64O scres) of land should
be given 10 each white male inhabitant who
settled in the territory; but, as amended, it
enacts that provision shall be made by law
for grants 10 that extent 10 all who shall have
been settlers for the space of five years.
The former was an immediate grant; the
latter prospective one. He held either
form ofthe law TO rest on the same principe.
The great question, the only question was
whether we could, under the convention,
make grants ofland, either positive or con.
conditional. Concurring entirely in the
view taken by the Senator from New Ham
pshire, lMr. WOODBURY. he believed we
could, and that such was England's own in
depreciation of il. If the convention pro.
hibits fixed settlements, still conditional
and prospective grant is no violation of it;
besides that, England violates it las has
been clearly shown not only by indirect
grants of land, but by every sort of perma-
nent settlement, and her national pledge to
protect the fixed establishments which have
beer or may be formed. Our own grants
are but prospective. and Britain can certain.
" have no right to complain of them until
thev shall be carried into effect. The bill
invites our citizens 10 60 thither. promising
them that a residence of five years-a peri
cd within which the whole question of right
can easily be settled-shall entite them 10
certain advantages. In failure Of these, we
should of course be bound to make them an
equivalent.
ITO what extent does the convention per.
NIT settlements? Icannot perceive that 1t
limits the purposes for which they may be
made, nor that it preclues them in any thing
which will permit either people free access
to the country, and the right of hunting and
fishing. If these require that there shall be
no fixsd settlements, then England already
excludes you by her settlements. But surely
fixed settlements are perfectly to be recon.
cied, in new country, with fishing and
hunting; and trading is quite compatible
with fixed settlements, even in an old one.
When settlements grow thick, then beyond
doubt game is driven off: but we are not
bound 10 preserve the game for them-to
see that they have fish enough and beaver
enough. IF interference with the game is
TO prohibit our settlement, then what is to be
said Of them, who have absolutely destroy
ed almost entirely all the beaver in the
countryi No, sir. let them hunt and fish as
long as they like, till they have dePop ulated
the waters as they have already done the
forests. Our settlements will still leave
them free 10 ply the rifle. the trap, and the
fishing line; and it is none Of eur business to