Rutland herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1823-1847, 1843-02-14
REMARKS OF MIR PHELPS OF VT
ON THE OREGON BILL.

Mr. Phelps remarked, that rs the bill came
from the committee 1t provided that one scctlon OF
GAO acres Of land should be- given to each white
male nhabitant " no might settle in that territory
but under the new modification, II provided that
provision shall be made by law for granting OF
Gao acres to each settler The provision, as it
stood made the grant OF land but the modification
says that provision shall be made by law TO grant
il The modification he conceived. make. no
difference; Tor the prime pie nj the back Of it was
the same The great question. and only qu' stion,
was, whether the bill came in conflict with the
convention or agreement between the two coun-
tries He believed that il was perfectly harmo-
Nous with the convention, If they put upon that
convention the construction WHICH the Senator
from New Hampshire (Mr Woodbury. showed
had been placed upon II hv Engai hers'lf-as
that Of commercialtrraiy only III did even
extend SO fra 10 prohi' it the settlement of the
country Mt all the bill did not conflict with the
convention. because il proceeded on the principle
of prospective se,il, mcnt-of holding on, induce
ments merely for cilz' ms to settle there Great
Britain could have nothing TO do with it, even I'M
der the latter construction un'llthe act carried
into .frct-that is BY hereafter making the grant
which wa. guaranteed in the bill The bill only
holds ont the inducement for our citizens Ia 90 and
make seliIom,nls but not 10 take exclusive and
perm,n'nt possession Of the country The bill
could not b. made subject Of complaint bv Gteat
Britain, until the grant Of land was actually made
and the country taken possession Of the citizens
occupying lands under title from the United Stat~s
came in conflict with British subi.c's There
was a stronger ground still. The question raised
was ms to the purport Of the CONVENTION of Is IS
how far did it permit citizens Of this country to
occupy tina, territory The provisions of the con
ventlon were simply, that any portion ofthe com
try claimed by either Of the parties of the conven.
ton should from the signing of that convention
be free and open TO the subjects and citizens Of
both Govcrnm'ns and that lis provisions should
not be construed to prejudice any claim Of this
country, or right to the territory The Join, oe-
cupation was not in terms, for purposes of trade,
or for purposes of settlement. The convention
was G neral; and whether it allowed of perma-
ncnt settlements in the country, not, wasa qufs-
ton of construction IL England complains of
the action OF Congress It must be on the ground
that we misunderstood the construction Of hat con.
ven,ion If we follow the construction given TO il
bv her. there can b. no question as to the propr-
ETY. ofthe passage ofihis bill. Mr. p then cited
from the law ofParanent resting on the conven.
ton, in favor of,he Hudson Bay Company, n
provision TO the eff that nothing in that act
should be construed to allow any body corporate
to make grants or to exercise the rights Of trade
WIN Inc ln1ans, 10 inc tNcihsIob OF cHZensoI tne
United States of America lie then quoted fur
ther provisions Of the law, which went conclu.
svely to prove that the treaty was one of trade
and commerce with the Indians merely, and that
the rights OF the United States were scrupnlorsly
guarded He then quoted ohe- provisions Of The
act of Parliament extending the laws Of Canada
over the portions OF that territory at the disposal
ofthe Hudson Bay Company, as Justification Of
this bill which authorized the court. of the United
States to extend their jurisdiction over the Amerl-
can settlements in that territory