Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-06-04
EIra Official communication rih regard to The Canada

Lord Aukapd on the part Of the Canada merchants
forth variety Of injuries which they complain Of having
from government and servants Of the United
States and praying that their complaints may be attended
to- and obtained for them in the discussions which
at present pending between the American and British
The injuries brought forward in their memorial may be
reduced to the three following heads; l. Their exclusion
from Louisiana.
By the third article of the treaty of 1884, agreed
that shall at all free to his Msjesys subjects and
the citizens Of the United States freely 10 pass by land
inland navigation into respective territories and countries
OF the parties the continent Of America and nav
gate all the lakes and thereof and freely carry
trade with each other"
But notwithstanding thi. express stipulation which Sc
cures bis maesiys subjects, without Limitation
vaon the tight Of Commercial intercourse by land inland
navigation with all the territories OF the United States
continent Of America the Gorernor Of Louisiana has
thought proper 70 erciude them from the commerce Of that
provnc they ALLURE their allegiance
majesty and take oath Of allegiance the United
and the Governor has also taken it upon him pro-
hib the Introduction of goods merchandise which
the property Of citizens of the United States"
This arbitrary proceeding besides being direct viola
waite of The Canada Merchants for il excludes them
from country where they have been carrying trade
eessfuly for many without interruption from the
Spanards having latery pushed their commercial posts
the banks Of the Mssous and augmented the sale
Of their goods in Louisiana to the amount Of about forty
fifty thousand pounds annually"
This is the omplaint-exclusion from Louisiana by
the United States Governor of that province We
took possession of Upper Louisiana in March, 1904
the complaint was made in London in lS06; conse-
quently the exclusion enforced very soon after
we took possession. The question is, upon what
authority did the Governor act in making this excu-
sion, and what line did he extend il! Doubtless
by order of his own government but it is good to be
certain; and in the case Of Mr.. Greenhow's over
shadowng authority; backed it is by the Senator
from Michigan, 1T becomes necessary to prove every
thing, that Governor Of upper Louisiana had
the authority of his government for the boundaries of
his province Fortunately tine first Governor of upper
| Toni Of nall coffh o
sword, and employed his leisure hours in drawing up
history of the country which he govern.
1t was Major Amos Soddard who afterwards lost his
life at Fort Meigs, during the late with Great
Britain In his useful work, modestly called Sketches
of louisiana he thus speaks Of the northern bound
airy of his province:
"The commerce of Croza by the terms of the patent ex-
tended the limit Of Louisiana quarter which
by the treaty of Utrecht in l7l3, fixed the 49h
degree"
This is Major Stoddard's account of this northern
boundary, and of the line from which and by which
he excluded British traders from Louisiana. He did
it BY virtue of the line of Utrecht and no British
Minister in that day did would deny its existence,
or mpugn its validity. Lords Holland and Auckland,
10 whom the complaint of the Canadian merchants
made, refused 10 present it officially to our min
listers. They do not in fact, appear TO have spoken
word on the subject, done any thing more than
present their memorial to ministers. Certain it
is, the complaint remained without redress.
But the efforts of the British fur-traders did not
stop at this repulse The next year the Earl of Sell
kirk head Of the Hudson Bay Company, went to
London to the complaints of the fur-traders in
formal manner, and to claim their restoration
to the privileges of trade within the limits of Loui-
siana. That gentleman, as head of the Hudson Bay
Company-as founder of the colony Lake Wirpee
AS the person most injured by the exclusion OF
British traders from Lousiana-ought to know some
thing about his rights and wrongs and in
bringing these before the British ministry for redress
ought be supposed TO state his case as strongly
truth and justice would allow. He does so but not
strongly enough to deny the fact Of the line of 40 deg
under the treaty of Utrecht. That line was doing
him ali the mischief: the short remedy was to deny
its existence if it could be denied. On the contrary
he admits the fact of former existence, and only
argues against present existence and present appli-
cabity. His argument is, first, that the treaty of
Utrecht not revived by the treaty of Amens, of
1901; and, therefore, that it abrogated by war
and, secondly, that the long occupation of the ST.
Peters river and of the Missouri above the Mandan
villages, without objection from the Spaniards, was
an admission of their right to trade in Louisiana and
should be conclusive upon the United States In a
memorial to Lord Holland in 1907, he presents these
views at much length and sustains them by argu-
ments, of which these are specimens:
Understanding that you present engaged in set
Ting with the American plenipoenaTies the boundaries
province of British American
domnions, beg leave TO call attention
gesons To the upper part Of Missouri
Britain preferable claim About latitude AZ the British
traders, coming in from the Hudson Bay
tanned traffic with the Mandan Indians These
the first Europeans who obtained any knowledge of the
Of the Missouri and they had laid down course
of that river from the Mandans to the Rocky mountains,
with great mnuteness many years before the journey Of
MessIs. Lewis and Clarke. The claim of Great Britain to
Missouri country equally valid and
ground her claim NoOtka sound and country
west Of the Rocky Mountains on the ocean.
u There are abundance of grounds for denying
that there any rights in the American government
Utrecht. The stpuations Of the treaty
of Utrecht the limits of the Hudson Bay territories
do a all upon the question The limits fixed by
that treaty were for Canada, not Louisiana.
Allow only briefly to observe that the treaty OF Utrecht
having been renewed at the of Amens would
have been available TO France if she had
peace with and in possession Of louisiana"
Thus argues the Earl of Selkirk admitting the fact
of boundaries fixed under the treaty of Utrecht and
only arguing against the present existence and appli
cability of these boundaries Lord Holland adopted
none of these views he presented the paper without
comment, to the American ministers who, in sending
it home to their government, characterized it an
idle paper and took no further notice of it. II was
in fact an idle paper, but not quite idle enough in
any sense of the word deny the work of the COM
missaries under the treaty of Utrecht.
! But to 60 with the proofs
In the year 1905, being the second year after the
acquisition of louisiana President Jefferson sent
ministers to Madrid Messrs. James Monroe and
Charles Pinkney to adjust the eastern and southwest
ern boundaries with her; and, in doing So the prn-
cpes which had governed the settlement of the north
ern boundary of the province became a proper
illustration of their ideas They quoted these prin-
ciples, and gave the line of Utrecht as the exam
| pie; and this to Don Pedro Cevalos one of the
most accomplished statesmen in Europe. They say
to him:
at believed that this principle been admitted and
acted invariably since the discovery of America
spec their possessions there by all the European powers
Ii particularly illustrated by the spuations of their most