Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1843-02-10
REMARKS OF MR.. PHELPS OF VT. ON
THE OREGON BILL.

MIR. Phelps remarked, that, the bill came
from the committee, it provided that one section
of $40 acres Of land should be given to each white
male inhabant who might settle in that territory
but, under the new modification, it provided that
provision shall be made by law for granting Of
GAO acres 10 each settler. The provision, as it
stood, made the grant of land but the modifica-
ton says that provision shall be made by law TO
grant it. The modification, he conceived makes
no difference for the principle al the back of it
was the same. The great question, and only ques-
ton, was, whether the bill came IN conflict with
the convention or agreement between the two
countries. He believed that it was perfectly har-
monious with the convention, if they put upon
that convention the construction which the Sena-
tor from New Hampshire mr.. Woodbury. show
ed had been placed upon il by England herself
as that of n commercial treaty only. Ii it did g.
ven extend SO far as to prohibit the settlement of
the country at oil, tho bill did not conflict with the
convention, because il proceeded on the principle
OF u prospective settlenent-of holding out in
ducements merely for our citizens settle there.
Great Britain could have nothing to do with il, e.
ven under the latter construction until The act
was carried into effect-that is, by hereafter maxi
ing the grant which was guaranteed in the bill
The bill only holds out the inducement for Cit
liens TO 60 aud make settlements, hut not to take
exclusive and permanent possession of the coun-
try. The bill could not he made subject oi COM
plant by Great Britain, un the grant OF land
was actually made and the country taken possess
sion OF, or the citizens occupying lands under title
from the United States came in conflict with Brit
ish subjects. There was u stronger ground still.
The question raised was, as 10 the purport OF the
convention OF l6lS-how far did II permit citi-
zens OF this country 10 occupy that territory. The
provisions Of the convention were, simply, that "a
ny portion of the country claimed by either of
the parties of the convention should, from the
signing of that convention, be free aud open TO
the subjects and citizens of both Governments;
and thar its provisions should not be construed TO
prejudice any claim of this country, or right to
The territory. The joint occupation was not in
terms, for purposes of trade, or for purposes of
settlement. The convention was general; aud
whether it allowed OF permanent settlements in
the country, or NOT, was a question OF construc-
ton. II England complains OF the action OF Cvn-
gress, it must be on the ground that we misunder-
stood the construction of that convention. II we
follow the construction given to il by her, there
can he no question as 10 the propriety of the pas
sage of this bill MIR. p. then cited from the law
OF Parliament resting on the convention, IN favor
of the Hudson Bay Company, provision 10 the
effect that nothing in that act should be construed
to allow any body corporate to make grants, or to
exercise the rights OF trade with the Indians TO the
exclusion Of citizens of the United States OF A
merica. He then quoted further provisions OF the
law, which went cOnclusvely TO prove that tie
treaty was one OF trade and commerce with the
Indians merely, and that The rights Of the United
States were scrupnlonsly guarded. lie then quo
led other provisions of the act of Parliament ex-
tending the laws Of Canada over The portions of
that territory AT the disposal OF the Hudson Bay
COMPANY, us a justification of this bill which au-
thorxed the courts Of the United States to extend
their jurisdiction over the American settlements in
that terriIory.l