The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-17

on the part Of the United States. The proposition
/ he submitted was through governor and Judges,
the head OF territorial Incorporation, TO transmit
the laws Of the United States TO her citizens residing
beyond the practicable extension OF her organized
| jurisdiction.
This, he contended we had right to do under
the existing convention with Great Britalni THIS
was our duty to own citizens to the Indian in
habltanls OF that territory, and, he believed, es-
sentia TO the preservation Of order and the MAIN
tenance of our treaty obligations. This policy
unconnected with the termination OF the convention
i Of the joint occupancy with Great Britain, and
should have been adopted long ago. Ii was neces-
sary to limit the British act of 1921, which has
found excuse, in the absence of all other law, or
| "ciyil government" for an extension invasive Of our
rights, and injurious to our people.
| With this brief explanation, and relying on the
familiarity Of the committee with the subieet-matter
it contained, he submitted his substitute to their
consideration.
Mr.. JACOB THOMPSON rose and said that he
had been instructed by the Committee on Indian
Affairs to offer a substitute for that part Of the
bill relating 10 the Indians, bill which he had re-
| Gently reported from that committee.
Mr.. JAMES THOMPSON said that the Com
mittee Territories would assent to that amend
ment.
Mr.. OWEN then spoke on the subject; and his
remarks will be given hereafter. Mr. y. said the
bill left the extent Of our claim independent, as It
| should do.
He did not believe that there were ten men in the
House who denied that we had any right in the ter
/ ritory. All agreed that we had SEINE rights. Was
not them our duty extend the laws Of the Uni
ted States over our citizens' He could not con-
| eur with the proposition Of the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr.. VRros, 10 terminate our jurisdiction,
under this BILL with the expiration of the joint occu-
| patton. That gentleman had said that the measure
would be construed to be offensive TO Great Britain.
As far as national honor was concerned, It was a
substantial and business matter, not mere abstrac-
ton No nation could be bullied, or insulted, or
/ deprived OF its Just right without suffering in the
eyes of other nations. We should do nothing that
would place this any other nation in such an at
titude. Eminent lawyers here had differed TO the
construction ofths bill and to the construction of
| British statutes. Some had said that the British
statutes of 1921 claimed territorial jurisdiction. Ger
tany this bill did not propose TO do half so much
Great Britain had done. The only restriction in the
British related to trade British subjects were
restricted from exclusive right TO trade where ct-
| zens of the United States have a right TO trade.
We this b reserved all the rights Of British sub
i jects.
| We had not gone half as far as the British gov
eminent had done. Suppose it should be said in
Parliament, that Great Britain had been bullied by
| the American government Would not Sir Robert
Peel be compelled TO reply, that the American gov
eminent had not gone half an far as the British gov
| eminent had done' IL would, therefore, be no
L u
take care not to do any thing that would appear to
| be an abandonment Of our rights.
He could see no reason for limiting the bill to the
existence Of the convention. The British subjects
would not thus he cut off from all protection. The
| British jurisdiction would remain, while people
would not have laws TO protect them. IL would be
considered, it had been argued, by the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr.. Seldom, that this bill assumed
| to extend jurisdiction over the whole Of Ore
| gon, at the end Of the convention. But we had no
| people north of the Columbia. Our settlers were in
the valley Of Willamette. But the question must
| come to an issue.
Mr.. SELDOM here proposed a question not
heard by the reporter
| Mr.. OWEN continued. It might be the right
and duty Of our country to exclude all British uris-
diction in their vicinity. The question Of jursdic
ton must arise, and it might well arise in this
\ in any other manner.
The practical effect of the amendment would be
to intimate to Great Britain that did not intend
to defend our jurisdiction over our settlers. The
moral effect of this would be bad
| Mr.. o. objected to several of the amendments
that had been proposed, exempting British subjects
within limits, from the operation of our laws.
| Mr.. BELL here suggested some amendments.
| Mr.. OWEN thought there ought to be some ad-
ditona assurance that the people who settled in Ore
gon should have grants of land on the west side OF
the mountains. These lands were ours, though sub
ect to an incumbrance, which would cease with the
expiration Of the convention.
| Mr.. JAMES THOMPSON had risen, he said,
merely for the purpose Of suggesting the proprety
Of yielding little for the purpose Of unanimity in
| regard to this bill. No one could imagine how
much anxiety he had felt in relation to it; and he
would say that he would have been 10th to refuse
| the BILL had he known how much he would have to
| endure.
i He would detain the committee only for few
moments, while he made some suggestions in re-
gard to the amendments that had been offered The
| amendment of the gentleman from Ohio Mr.. VIM
TON would be complete inversion, or reversion of
the principle and objects of the bill The gentleman
had called this imbecie bill. But if he were to
indulge in any such reflections, he would show that
the genteman's proposition of the most imbecie
| character.
The amendment would prevent the exercise of
our jurisdiction in the territory after the termination
of the joint occupancy. Though we put an end to
the convention and assert title the territory
yet by this amendment if adopted, we would say
that, after the termination of the convention, we
| would have no rights in the territory, and that we
must clear OUT bag and baggage-giving protec-
| ton to our cltlzens-exercsIng no Jurisdiction.
| We were much in fear of Great Britain that
we could not exert the same authority in the terri
| tory that she had done. Some gentlemen here had
said that no nation had any title in the territory.
But Great Britain had asserted and exercised rights
of jurisdiction in it, to greater extent than pro-
posed, he would show. He read some portions
of the British statute of 1921
Some objection had been made to the promise Of
| lands. He would show a hundred cases in which
this protective Legislation had taken place. He re-
| ferred to the example of Virginia, New York and
| Pennsylvania, in l779, when lands were granted
prospectivey, and upon some contingencies, to the
| revolutionary officers rom those States He went
on to argue that such promises were perfectly
proper.
The hour of two having arrived, the committee,
in pursuance Of the order Of the House Of Wednes
day, proceeded to vote amendments pending, or
| to be offered.
The first section of the bill is in the following
words:
"Be il enacted by The Senate and House Of Represen-
tapes fhe United States Of america in Congress as
sembted, That the jurisdiction of the supreme court
of the Territory of Iowa, and the laws of said Ter
ritory, so far as the same may be applicable, are
hereby extended over all that portion Of the terri
tory Of the United States which lies of the
Rocky mountains; and also over all that portion of
the intermediate country west of the Missouri river,
and between the fortieth and fort third paraels of