Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1845-1851, 1846-06-03
Er,ra ccdl Communication trih regard TO The (qnadr
kr.LLe D..cn.nL .

Lord Aukland the part Cauads merchants se,tin
forth variety OF injuries which they complain Of hayiu
States aud praying that their plants NAV be
TO- and elfeSs obtained for them the discussions which
nj present pending between the American and B,iti,l
C ,nr.i>>ioners.
"lhe injuries brought forward in their memorial nav b,
reduced to the thee following heads L. Their erclasios
from Louisianl.
BY The third article Of the treaty of 1891 it is ar eet
that shall at all times be free to his Maesy subjects and
citizens United freely to pass nv Ind ~
naid navigation into The esp clite territories ami
of the paites the continent of America and TO nav
gate all The lakes and waters thereof and freely TO carry or
trade with each UtheT.'
But notw landing this express s uation wbich So
cures his maesty subjects, without Limitation or ,eser
vaton the gh Of commercial intercourse by land or inland
ayga'n wi all the territories of the United States or
The continent Of America, the GorernOr Of Louisiana hg,
thought proper 10 ercude them from The commerce # hal
ereHsire proUfRce unless they al i1re their allie 49,
majesty and take an oath If altgauce to the United Sses
and The Governor has also taken it upon him TO pro
hib the Introduction Of goods which
are not The property Ol citizens Of the United Stltes"
treaty Of 1894 highly detrimental to The n, j.
interest OF The Canada TeIthans for it excludes ten
from county where they carry on trade sue
ceSsu!y Tor many without interruption the
Spanard>, having IaeIy pushed their Commercial posts
even to the the i'sou and augmented the sale
Of their goods in Louisiana to the IF forty
fifty thousand pounds annually
This is the CONF laint-excluson 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 1St6; consc-
quently the exclusion was enforced very soon after
we took possession. The question now i, upon what
authority did the Governor act in making this excln-
SION, and to what line lid be extend it Doubtless
by order OF his own government but il is good to be
certain; and IN the Of Mr. Greenhow's over
sladowing authority; backed it is by tie Senator
from Michigan, 1t becomes necessary to prove every.
thing, even that Governor Of upper Louisiana had
tie authority Of his government for the boundaries of
his province. Fortunately tie first Governor IF upper
Louisiana was man Of letters as well as of the
sword and employed his leisure hours in drawing up
history Of The country which he was sent to govern
Il was Major Amos StoddarG 10 afterwards lost his
LIE at Fort Meigs, during tie late war with Great
Britain. In his useful work. modosty called 'SLetcaeS
OF Lou's'ana, he thus speaks Of the northern bound
airy of Ills province:
The of Cloz, by the terms of the patent. ex
tended to the utmost limit of Louisiana quarter which
ty the treaty If Utrecht in 1913, fixed the 40
desioe."
This Is Major Soddards account of this northern
boundary. and Of the line from which and by which
he excluded British traders from Louisiana He did
ii by virtue Of the line Of Utrecht and 10 British
Minister that day did or would DENY its ex sence.
or impucn It's validity. Lords Holland and Auckland.
10 whom the complaint Of tie Canadian merchants
made, refused 10 present it officially to our min
isicrs They do no., III fact, appear to have spoken
u word on the subject, or done any thing more than
present their memorial to our ministers Certain ii
Is, the cO:npa mt remained without redress
But the efforts Of the British fr-tradcrs id not
stop at this rcpusc. The next year the Earl of Sell
Kirk, Lead Of the Hudson Bay Company. went to
London TO renew the complaints of the furraders in
more formal manner and TO claim their restoration
to the privileges Of trade within the limits of Loui-
slana. That gentleman, head of the Hudson Bav
Company-as founder OF the colony on Lake Wiripce
-as the person most injured by the exclusion of
British traders from Loulsana-ought to know some
thing about his own rights and wrongs and in
bringing these before tie British ministry for redress
ought be supposed state his case as strongly as
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 dono
him al the mischief the short remedy was 10 deny
lis existence. ii it could be denied On the contrary
he admits the fact Of former existence and only
argues against present existence. and present appl-
cablllty. His argument is, frSt that the treaty of
Utrecht was not revived by the treaty of Amiens Of
1901 and, therefore, that 1T ahrorated by war
and, Scondy, that the long occupation of the St.
Peter, river and Of the Missouri above the Mandan
villages without objection from tie Spaniar,ls was
an admission of their right 10 trade in Louisiana. and
should be conclusive upon tie United States In =
TO Lord Holland, in l>07, he presents these
views at much length and susiains item 10y arcu-
menis, OF which these are specimens:
Undertaking that you at present engaged in set
ting 18th the Anne cin pleuipoenlialeS boundaries
ttlNceh me province al Loui>dia and The British
domiaons beg leave TO call your attention su
seSiioiS. To The upper part of Missouri
Britain has preferable claim About latitude Il the British
Traders coming in fom the Hudson Bay terrore main
tanned traffic with the Manan Indians. These traders were
The flt Europeans who obtained any know ledge OF the
ufces Of the Missouri and they had laid down
d nat iiyer from tie Mandan up to tie Rocky mountains
with great mnuttnes many years before the journey Of
NossIs Lewis and Clarke The claim Of Great Biitau f.
the upier Missouri county equally valid ard rests on the
same ground as her clam to Nootka sound and the country
Ae>i oil the Rocky Mountains on the
There ale abundance of grounds for denying
hat there any tights in the American government to
found it, claims The stpualions of the tIeaiy of
Juccht The siipulations of the treaty
Of Utrecht, as to the limits Of the Hudson Bay territories
10 not bear at all upon the question. The limits fixed hy
hat treaty were for Canada, not Louisiana.
low only br, ny observe that treaty OF Utrecht
'o having been renewed at The Of Amien would not
been available TO France if she had remained at
eaee with US and in possession of Louisiana
Thus argues the Earl Of Selkirk, admitting the fact
IF boundaries fixed under the treaty Utrecht and
,ny arguing against tie present existence ard apnIj
ability of these boundaries. Lord Holland adopted
lonc OF these views; he presented the paper without
to the American ministers who. IN send,np
home TO their government, characterized it as an
Idle paper, and took no further notice of it, twas
II fact idle paper, but not quite idle enough in
M sense Of The word, to deny the York of the CON-
nssares under the treaty of Utrecht
But to 60 on with the proofs.
In the year 1903, being the second year after the
c1usitlon OF LOUISIANA, president Jefferson sent
minister's to Madrid. Messrs. James Monroe and
'hares Pinkney TO adjust the eastern and southwest
IN boundaries with her. and, in doing so, the prin
iples which had governed the settlement of the north
rn boundary Of The same province became proper
Illustration Of their ideas They quoted these prin-
iples, and gave tie line Of Utrecht as tie exam
lie; and this to Don Pedro CevaIIos, one of the
most accomplished statesmen In Europe. They say
D HIM:
II IS believed that this principle has been admitted and
cted invariably since tie discovery of America in re-
ect TO their possessions there by all The European powers
particularly illustrated by the tpulations of their most
nporant treaties concerning those possessions the
aes under them viz The treaty Of Utrecht in l7l3 and