The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1856-03-29

unIalrneSS OF the report OF the ,nOnOraDl
Committee in the House of Representative
/! on the petition of Isaac Andrus, in relation
to the late Winnebago Treaty, in order tha
the people may understand this question il
its true light, and the difference of opinion
between the House of Representatives an,
the petitioner, in regard to said petition, ant
compare the Constitution and laws of Con
gress with the garbled extracts of this Hon
Committee, that they may be enable to judg
of the merits of the report:
"The Committee to which was referred
the petition of Isaac Andrus, would res
pectfully submit the following report -Youi
1 Committee have examined the petition o
Isaac Andrus, and the Laws of the United
States referred to in said petition, and while
they believe that those persons who occupied
the lands in question previous to the con.
summation of the Treaty between the United
States and the Winnebago Indians, whereby
said lands were ccded to said tribe of In
dians, have suffered great inconvenience from
the effect of said Treaty; yet your Com
mittee cannot concur in the statement made
by the said Isaac Andrus, that the late Win
nebago Treaty conflicts with the rules and
regulations of Congress, stipulated in the
Organic Law and laws of l84l and of 1854,
respecting the Territory of Minnesota.
"The sixth section of the Organic Act of
Minnesota declares that mo law shall be
passed by the Legislative power of said Ter
ritory interfering with the primary disposal
of the soil.'" Now, from the above quota
ton, SO relevant to the point, is it not possi-
ble that the Hon. members of the House
were beguiled into the belief that they were
listening to the report of road petition.
But the Committee proceed to say, "Gov-
ernment still retaining the right to dispose
of her own SOIL" Now why this unfairness
in the Committee to use so vague term
the Government. Who is the Government?
Would the Committee be understood as
affirming that the President and Senate is
the Government, and can dispose of the
Territory or other PROPERTY belonging to the
United States contrary to the Constitution.
If not, why not quote that very relevant
passage in the third section of the fourth
article in the Constitution, which says, "The
Congress shall have power to dispose of, and
make all needful rules and regulations res
pecting the Territory or other property be-
longing to the United States"
Now the Committee have sufficient evi-
dence before them to show that the Terri
tory embraced in THE late Winnebago Treaty
was not disposed of by Congress to the In
dians, nor has Congress made any rules or
regulations in regard to the occupancy of
said territory by the Indians. But the laws
of Congress of lS41 and of 1854, are posi-
tive sousp!Ae that Congress has made rules
and regulations whereby said Territory may
be occupied by citizens of the United States.
And the disposal of said territory to the
Winnebago Indians by the President and
Senate, and ousting citizens who entered
upon said lands in pursuance of the rules
and regulations of Congress, must be pal
pably evident violation of the rules and re-
gulations of Congress, to all except "the
wise and prudent"
The Act of Congress-, approved by the
President the 4th day of August, 1854, as
| quoted by the Committee, is SO contradic-
tory in its terms, and so unintelligible to
me, if it contains any arguments in favor OF
the report, am unable to see it. But the
| Committee proceed to say, I" 1t cannot be
denied then, but that those persons who
10 ated on said reserve after the 4th day OF
August, 1854, and before the Indian title
attached under the treaty of February 1855
had secured rights that cannot be affected or
destroyed" That's consoling in this Com
mittee, really, for people to be told that they
have rights that can not be affected or des-
troyed, when the liberty to exercise those
rights has been taken away. This doctrine
would be consolng to the poor slaves, to be
told that they had rights that could not be
affected or destroyed, when they have nc
liberty or power to exercise them. But the
Committee say "rights that cannot be af
ected." This is not so. Rights are made
valueless when you take away the liberty
or power to exercise them.
The claimants that entered upon the lands
embraced in said treaty, in pursuance of the
laws of Congress, had the liberty to remair
on their claims, cut timber and improve
their claims, and were not trespassers, &C
cording to the laws of Congress. Blu
according to the law of this Treaty they art
found on Indian lands, they have no liberty
by the law of the Treaty to remain mo
ment, or to cut stick of timber, or improve
their claims yet the Committee say thi
Treaty does not conflict with the rules ant
regulations of Congress respecting the Ter
ritory of Minnesota. What keen percep
tion -sc 81 7s.,t
The Committee proceed further and say
But the Constitution of the United State
: delares that ..private property shall not b
taken for public use, except upon just com
pensation.' Now why this unfair, garble
, and untrue quotation of the Committee
The committee proceed and say: "An
{ when,it becomes necessary for the author;
thorities In the administration of this Go,
ernment to appropriate private property
y. 4